Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[Mousetrap]

Now I showed what the Biblical description of the Origins of the Universe is.
Tomorrow I will look at what science says!
See, I promised I will not twist the Biblical view, nor the Scientific observations.
In a few days everything will be clear on my investigation into this matter.
Good evening.

[Mousetrap]

You can make up any shit you like.

Much appreciated.

[trdsf]

"Science" is just a murky two-syllable word to Mousetrap, I see.  And creating a graphic in MS Paint does not qualify as evidence.

You haven't explained why these semantic gymnastics are appropriate for the Bible, but not for other scriptures.  I mean, you can do it pretty easily.  Hindu myth is even at an advantage over Judeo-Christo-Islamic myth, as it takes in scales of time that are genuinely geological and cosmological, rather than parochial.

Mousetrap, you're also still evading the core problem: you've surrendered any evidentiary value you want to ascribe the Bible because you're engaged in interpretation, you're explicitly admitting that it doesn't say what it actually says.  And once you fall into interpretation, it's useless.

I would have more respect for taking the position that the Big Bang represented the moment of Fiat lux! -- I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be a more respectable interpretation that at least stands back and says the universe is what we observe it to be otherwise.

What you have here is not only wrong, it's wronger than wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Much appreciated.

Just don't expect dumb acceptance, this isn't a church.

[sdelsolray]

Mr. "Just Wait, I Will Show All of You the Truth" Mousetrap begins revealing the depth of his curiosity, rational thinking, understanding and knowledge.

He's a funny guy.  This should be entertaining, at least for a while.

[Munch]

I can already foretell the outcome.

"Science has no evidence for what started the big bang, only that an unknown force started it. This can only mean the unknown force was sentient, which must have been GAWD!"

The classic 'filling in the gaps with made up hokum' logic a theist uses. Because when science, which is a broad spectrum that is forever changing and growing, religion is just one set of rules that can't be changed otherwise it would contradict everything its about.

[Baruch]

I can already foretell the outcome.

"Science has no evidence for what started the big bang, only that an unknown force started it. This can only mean the unknown force was sentient, which must have been GAWD!"

The classic 'filling in the gaps with made up hokum' logic a theist uses. Because when science, which is a broad spectrum that is forever changing and growing, religion is just one set of rules that can't be changed otherwise it would contradict everything its about.

Not just that, but the Catastrophism ... is right out of Velikovsky ... the Russian solar system crank.  For him, Jupiter is responsible, the planet, not the god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Other early geological fads were Neptunism and Vulcanism.  Until Uniformitarianism and Gradualism took hold with James Hutton.  Mousetrap is from the Phlogiston school of physics ;-)

[Unbeliever]

Is this speculation predicated on the idea that an ancient biblical day could be interpreted as millions or billions of years, or are we talking about actual 24 hour rotations of the planet?

"In the beginning" Earth's days were only about 4 hours, and have been slowing ever since due to the influence of the moon. So the current 24 hour rotation is just an artifact of the time since then. But, of course, 6000 years ago, when the creationist believe God created the Earth, the days would've been about the same as they are now.

[Blackleaf]

Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

[Munch]

Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block out the facts and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block how the fact and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

I saw it written out once. There were lots of white spaces.

[SGOS]

Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

And an even larger multiple of 8.7 that went extinct along the way.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now, now, now! You WILL follow the script Moustripe has by his computer, and you will fall gracelessly into the stunning logic traps he has set for you. It's what they require of us.

[Baruch]

"In the beginning" Earth's days were only about 4 hours, and have been slowing ever since due to the influence of the moon. So the current 24 hour rotation is just an artifact of the time since then. But, of course, 6000 years ago, when the creationist believe God created the Earth, the days would've been about the same as they are now.

Early life forms had no time to waste.  Must evolve now!

[Unbeliever]

Hard to get a good 8 hours of sleep when the night's only 2 hours long...