In the Beginning...

[warpus]

What I mean is that everything has to be dealt with as a possibility (not a fact) before its tested and rejected (or accepted).

There is an infinite number of possibilities, so that's not really possible.

Are we going to consider that the Universe exits in a frying pan that's beyond our means of observation? Based on your approach, we couldn't reject this, because we can't test it.

Based on my approach, we can't accept it, because we can't test it.

I hope you can see that my approach is more sensible.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is an infinite number of possibilities, so that's not really possible.

Are we going to consider that the Universe exits in a frying pan that's beyond our means of observation? Based on your approach, we couldn't reject this, because we can't test it.

Based on my approach, we can't accept it, because we can't test it.

I hope you can see that my approach is more sensible.

Filthy heretic, the troglodyte holds no frying pans.

 

[Arakhor]

Again, no. More things are accepted on faith then are accepted as proven. All are accepted as fact.

Unless you happen to be particularly religious, faith is not accepted simply as fact, except that it exists. I believe that God exists, but that doesn't mean I say that it is a fact that he exists, because there's little to no way of demonstrating that belief.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There is an infinite number of possibilities, so that's not really possible.

Are we going to consider that the Universe exits in a frying pan that's beyond our means of observation? Based on your approach, we couldn't reject this, because we can't test it.

Based on my approach, we can't accept it, because we can't test it.

I hope you can see that my approach is more sensible.

I think 'J' is correct. But I suggest we narrow down the possibilities to the reasonable ones or the ones worthy of consideration to avoid the unnecessary mental diaria. Eventually as long as we dont have some means of 'direct' knowledge but are depending on physical sense and its derivations through physical mind we are bound to accept everything on faith.

 

[warpus]

But I suggest we narrow down the possibilities to the reasonable ones or the ones worthy of consideration to avoid the unnecessary mental diaria.

How do we know which ones are reasonable and which ones aren't?

I don't think "God" is a reasonable possibility, for instance. There is 0 data or evidence to suggest that a god or Gods exist, so it seems we can discard notions of God as reasonable or viable possibilities.

I mean, I disagree with your way of doing things, but according to your way of doing things we have to discard God as a possibility.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How do we know which ones are reasonable and which ones aren't?

I don't think "God" is a reasonable possibility, for instance. There is 0 data or evidence to suggest that a god or Gods exist, so it seems we can discard notions of God as reasonable or viable possibilities.

I mean, I disagree with your way of doing things, but according to your way of doing things we have to discard God as a possibility.

For someone who sees possibility of Gods existence at 0 you spend too much time on threads such as this I would say... Anyways I dont know how much philosophers would agree with you honestly but I am pretty ignorant of philosophy myself so cant say much there.
Let me give you an example : before the microscope was invented how many people were considering existence of a tiny microorganism? Couple of freeks I suppose...
And last but not least you have thousands of years of human development of different separate cultures filled with pondering about existences of consciousness or beings beyond human existence. We know we are preceeded by lower animal consciousness and we will likely be succeeded by some more refined or larger one. Is it realy that difficult to imagine or consider some other form of consciousness? I am guessing one of the core questions is if consciousness can exist independently of the physical existence?
For my part I can say I have personal observation that consciousness even while apparently bound to certain physical forms is changing by and regulated by nonphysical laws. Thats something which cant be ignored.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Let me give you an example : before the microscope was invented how many people were considering existence of a tiny microorganism? Couple of freeks I suppose...
And last but not least you have thousands of years of human development of different separate cultures filled with pondering about existences of consciousness or beings beyond human existence. We know we are preceeded by lower animal consciousness and we will likely be succeeded by some more refined or larger one. Is it realy that difficult to imagine or consider some other form of consciousness? I am guessing one of the core questions is if consciousness can exist independently of the physical existence?
For my part I can say I have personal observation that consciousness even while apparently bound to certain physical forms is changing by and regulated by nonphysical laws. Thats something which cant be ignored.

The possibility that there are some greater and grander beings than us in the Universe... beings that would see us as little more than ants or some low form of bacteria... has nothing to do with the "God" of the Bible, or the question of whether the Genesis creation account is accurate.

Greater and grander beings than us, existing somewhere in the universe beyond our powers of detection... still does not change the fact that a solar system is formed by matter coalescing from a nebula into a star and then the gravitational force of the star causing planets to form around it. It does not change the fact that the Moon was formed by the Theia planetoid colliding with Earth in the planet's distant past.

No matter how many advanced alien races there are out there, the Earth simply could not have come into existence before the sun, unless you want to fall back on "Santa Claus God has magic so he can do whatever he wants" which is no different from saying "because I said so". No matter how many advanced aliens there are out there, it does not change the truth of my 5 year old's observation that "The moon is not a light" and the person who wrote Genesis obviously had no understanding of this.

My point remains, that the Bible, from its very first chapter and verse, is obviously, clearly, profoundly, wrong and thus can not be the work of an infallible, omnipotent being. Considering the possibility of advanced alien races has no bearing on this whatsoever.

 

[Berzerker]

a light in the Bible need not be how you use the term, it can mean a source of illumination like the mirrors in a lighthouse or even the son of man as the light illuminating the path of righteousness

people knew the Moon was different from the Sun, its phases reveal it merely reflects light

as for the sequence of days and the appearance of various phenomenon, Genesis is describing Earth's sky. Earth is the dry land, there was no dry land until the 3rd day - thats why a description of Earth's sky begins with the 4th day.

That doesn't mean the sun, moon and stars didn't exist before the 3rd or 4th day, they just didn't appear in Earth's sky until the Earth was revealed. They were appointed roles - to serve as signs and seasons, etc. Most of the stars cant even be seen so this is not a reference to the universe, just what an observer from Earth's surface can see.

 

[Berzerker]

I apologize for not responding sooner

No, because the Earth was initially dry, for the simple reason that it was too hot for liquid water to sit on the surface.

Genesis does not describe the formation of the primordial "Earth" as it appears in Gen 1:2 under the waters, that was before the creation of the dry land and life. Genesis describes events leading to the dry land and life.

Just as most of the world's creation myths, there was a primordial world usually visualized as a vast ocean covering what would one day - the 3rd day - become dry land. And it was dark... A dark, water covered world preceded God and God's creation. According to the Enuma Elish there were other "gods" (planets, worlds) but monotheism altered the story line.

Here's a good read on how researchers are trying to explain Earth's water

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-did-earth-get-its-water

There is another theory: the Earth formed at the asteroid belt... thats why Mars was robbed of material and why the Earth (and Moon) has water matching asteroids.

It is not that much of a mystery. We know the atmosphere has oxygen in it because of photosynthesis by cyanobacteria, for example. We know the ocean probably started out as vapor, largely expelled from the planet's interior by volcanic eruptions, and - when it was cool enough - condensing into clouds and falling as rain (for hundreds of years) to become the oceans. The atmosphere itself was formed by the action of volcanoes.

The problem with this theory is our water didn't form here according to researchers. They believe the early solar wind blew volatile gases outward where they began condensing at the asteroid belt... and our water matches up with water from Vesta. The inner half of the asteroid belt is relatively dry and the outer half is wet, so that might have been where the "snow line" was when the belt formed or was "created".

This world may have accreted surrounded by water vapor, it might have had an ocean dozens or hundreds of miles deep. Some of those asteroids have a high water content, there was plenty of ice forming at the asteroid belt and that would be the logical location for a planet. A planet covered by water and darkness...

If it took a magma ocean to solidify and volcanism to outgas the ocean then where is the rock? Our oldest rock formed in water. That means any magma pouring out of the Earth was under water. Plate tectonics produced the "dry land", while researchers are still debating the timing of the continents our most solid evidence shows the process starting around 4 bya shortly before life. So the science may just support creation myths that claim water preceded the continents and life.

The earth was nothing but dry land at the outset and was a volcanic fiery mess. Water came later... and it certainly didn't cover the whole world.

That theory is falling apart, our water is older than our rock

If one goes by Hesiods 'Theogonia' (ie 'birth of gods'), in the beginning there was Chaos and Erebos (utter darkness), and then the Night. First local god was the earth itself (Gaia) (and the Sky, iirc, Ouranos). After some turns there are the titans and their order. Then the titanomachia happens. The rest is -gods in- history

It is interesting how "chaos" is often used to describe existence before God creates Heaven and Earth, the early solar system was very chaotic. The Enuma Elish describes a sequence of gods being born that matches a depiction on a cylinder seal (VA 243) and the process became so chaotic the gods were crowding Tiamat in the middle.

In Aztec mythology the continents of the earth were carved out of a massive crocodile-like creature, killed by Tezcatlipoca (who lost his leg in the process, using it as bait). Tezcatlipoca was an alien god, though, and kept fighting other alien gods, needing human sacrifice to strengthen him or else the even more monstrous alien other gods would come here

In Middle Eastern myth Tiamat is a serpent or dragon, she becomes tehom in the Bible. She is the watery deep covering the "Earth" before God arrives to carve her in two thereby forming Heaven and Earth. Thats another reason I reject the notion these stories are about the universe, Heaven and Earth were once together in one planet.

The people who were writing these passages could not have really known about the universe as a concept and as such worded Genesis in terms the target audience would be most comfortable with. Their target audience were likely not scientists or philosophers, just regular folk who farm goats or something. It didn't need to be 100% logically accurate, it just needed to convey the desired meaning to a relatively uneducated group of people: In the beginning God created everything.

Created everything in Heaven and Earth... Thats the firmament used to divide the waters and the dry land and its sky (and life). Their story begins with a dark, water covered world before God shows up to create Heaven and Earth. Most of the world's creation myths claim the water preceded God, thats an important theme if we learn the science says water preceded continents and life.

 

[Agent327]

The problem with this theory is our water didn't form here according to researchers. They believe the early solar wind blew volatile gases outward where they began condensing at the asteroid belt... and our water matches up with water from Vesta. The inner half of the asteroid belt is relatively dry and the outer half is wet, so that might have been where the "snow line" was when the belt formed or was "created".

This world may have accreted surrounded by water vapor, it might have had an ocean dozens or hundreds of miles deep. Some of those asteroids have a high water content, there was plenty of ice forming at the asteroid belt and that would be the logical location for a planet. A planet covered by water and darkness...

You forget to mention how this planet moved to Earth position after having been fully formed in the asteroid belt.

If it took a magma ocean to solidify and volcanism to outgas the ocean then where is the rock? Our oldest rock formed in water.

Really? Says who?

That means any magma pouring out of the Earth was under water. Plate tectonics produced the "dry land", while researchers are still debating the timing of the continents our most solid evidence shows the process starting around 4 bya shortly before life. So the science may just support creation myths that claim water preceded the continents and life.

Creation myths haven't been supported by science. That's why they're myths.

The earth was nothing but dry land at the outset and was a volcanic fiery mess. Water came later... and it certainly didn't cover the whole world.

That theory is falling apart, our water is older than our rock

Is it?

a light in the Bible need not be how you use the term, it can mean a source of illumination like the mirrors in a lighthouse or even the son of man as the light illuminating the path of righteousness

Mirrors are not lights. The Son of Man only appears in the NT in that sense.

That doesn't mean the sun, moon and stars didn't exist before the 3rd or 4th day, they just didn't appear in Earth's sky until the Earth was revealed.

Revealed to whom?

Most of the stars cant even be seen so this is not a reference to the universe, just what an observer from Earth's surface can see.

That would include plenty of non-sun stars.

 

[timtofly]

Hu... It's not perfect ? By definition ?

I was not implying that the world is not perfect. I was asking why some people feel they have been cheated by living on a not so perfect world.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. If you were standing on a comet outside the solar system, all you would see is night.

That simply does not follow. (For one, the age of the universe is not based on the age of our star, but the other way around.)

The Big Bang is actually still happening. In fact, the universe is expanding at an exponential rate. The 'noise' from the original explosion can be seen on any TV which is not set to a channel: that white noise is residual from the original Big Bang. all other explanations for it have been eliminated. What is nonsense (both logically and scientifically) is your personal interpretation of the Big Bang.

In short, scientific theories, such as gravity, evolution and the Big Bang, aren't 'just theories'. They are scientific theories, which, to all intents and purposes, means they are solid fact. Quite unlike Genesis, which is indeed 'a theory' and, as theories go, not a very good one.

I'm inclined to refer to what I said above. Moses (if he was a historical person, which is far from being certain, to put it mildly) did not write Genesis. In fact, Genesis doesn't have a single author. as already mentioned, Genesis contains two creation stories, which differ slightly.

See also Sommwerswerd's reply.

You are suggesting that day and night are the same every where in the universe based solely on the solar system we live in. Then you said that the rest of the universe is not based on the solar system. Day and night is a concept and metaphor based on the fact that God separated the light from the darkness. Saying that the first instance of Light in the text and even in the universe does not make sense if you interpret it as light coming from the sun. It is the interpretation that is wrong, not the text nor even how it was written. From a human standpoint a day any where in the universe is 24 hours, but unless the way the earth rotates is the exact same throughout the universe, then a day may not even be 24 hours. The Light came first, and then the darkness. But the first day started out in the darkness, not the light. Therefore that light was not from the sun, but it does fit the description of how the universe was lit up at the very beginning, and then the first day or time started in the darkness of the first recorded time frame Night. The next two days had no light. That is not hard to understand, as the current cosmology said that after the initial light there was darkness for thousands and perhaps millions of years. That is according to the math, not actual observation. The only thing hard to reconcile is that current education cannot accept the time frame suggested in the text but they want the rest of the universe to conform to a standard 24 hour period based solely on the rotation of the planet they live on.

Why would you call the Genesis account a theory? Where is there proof from history that humans first called it a theory? And about the whole "there are two separate stories, meaning that it has to have two authors" is just a theory, that cannot be proven scientifically, thus not a fact. I hate the cliché accusation that humans cannot keep their facts and theories straight, especially if they are trying to prove something....

You cannot really call them 'the Books of Moses' as if they are actually attributable to Moses. The versions we have were edited and compiled long after the Israelites had forgotten their own history. To assume they preserved authoritative writings from before then just isn't feasible.

The compilers of the Pentateuch both thought that the Exodus happened at scale AND thought the Israelites conquered Canaan as foreign invaders. Not just as associated texts (like the book of Joshua), but literally within the texts themselves (the book of Exodus).

I can understand looking for wheat in the chaff when it comes to the Pentateuch. But it's easy to give it waaaaay more authority than it deserves.

The Jews are the only group of ancients that claimed in the text that they did preserve it from the very hand of Moses, even up to the point of their exile into Babylon, which is the alleged start of their recording of the myth. The accusation that they were not capable of doing so is also theory and not fact until it can be proven otherwise.

The possibility that there are some greater and grander beings than us in the Universe... beings that would see us as little more than ants or some low form of bacteria... has nothing to do with the "God" of the Bible, or the question of whether the Genesis creation account is accurate.

Greater and grander beings than us, existing somewhere in the universe beyond our powers of detection... still does not change the fact that a solar system is formed by matter coalescing from a nebula into a star and then the gravitational force of the star causing planets to form around it. It does not change the fact that the Moon was formed by the Theia planetoid colliding with Earth in the planet's distant past.

No matter how many advanced alien races there are out there, the Earth simply could not have come into existence before the sun, unless you want to fall back on "Santa Claus God has magic so he can do whatever he wants" which is no different from saying "because I said so". No matter how many advanced aliens there are out there, it does not change the truth of my 5 year old's observation that "The moon is not a light" and the person who wrote Genesis obviously had no understanding of this.

My point remains, that the Bible, from its very first chapter and verse, is obviously, clearly, profoundly, wrong and thus can not be the work of an infallible, omnipotent being. Considering the possibility of advanced alien races has no bearing on this whatsoever.

Can you prove to a person looking up at the moon at night that it is not a light source? Even though it is just a reflection it is the moon that appears to be the light giver. God did not say that the moon is the source of light, but that it would rule the night with light. Once again the literal interpretation that light can only come from the sun, does not make sense when we know that it comes from every star in different wavelengths. Why would it not make sense that God created all the stars at the same time, and then allowed their light to shine after a period of darkness? The assumption is the point that the oldest thing on earth is not as old as the observable light cone of the observable universe. The misunderstanding comes from thinking that the universe started out as a point instead of starting out already 14 billion light years across. No one knows the exact size, and I am not even going to attempt to prove what it's size was at the beginning. (We already did that in another thread.) The only reason that it "has" to start out small, is because the smaller it gets, the more reasonable the explanation can be for there to have been no God at the beginning. The energy of the big bang could come from the addition of light to matter already existing, it does not have to come from the energy of an exploding mass that later had to take eons to cool, and form star systems.

The logic of even have to say, "Let there be light" implies that there was no light any where in the universe, and this is stated after the statement that God created the universe. Would it have made more sense if God had just stated that it was created without light? Would that not be implied in the fact that there was no form and void? Saying that there was darkness first would also be redundant, that is also stated in the term void. Then there was so much light, that God had to physically separate it to make it dark again. That indicates that the light was every where in the universe at the same time. That would rule out the sun, or every star for that matter being in the same state they are now. The sun and all the stars were there though. That is the physical part of the universe that we can observe to this day. They all went dark for a period of time until the morning of the 4th day having no light to give directly from their own manufacturing. After the 4th, and in an ever expanding form, the galaxies could be seen as stated by God. That is not trying to put science into the text. That is understanding what was written with the current knowledge I have. As in the myriad of translations one can see how the same text was put to words in the then context of human understanding. I am just as sure of my comprehension as some here are sure that the Bible cannot be correct, as it has gone through so many revisions. Yet the simple and concise words are still here today. There does not seem to be much added, and who knows what has been taken away. If there has been omissions, it does not seem to have hindered my acceptance of the text, but I guess we may never know. And yes the same author can write from several different perspectives. Humans are capable of that. I am not even sure how that can be an argument at all for validity or even authorship.

 

[Berzerker]

You forget to mention how this planet moved to Earth position after having been fully formed in the asteroid belt.

A collision...the same collision that left behind a good portion of our crust and water to mark the location Heaven and Earth formed

Really? Says who?

researchers...google Earth's oldest rock

Creation myths haven't been supported by science. That's why they're myths.

You're wrong, creation myths claim water preceded continents and life and so does the science

Is it?

yes

Mirrors are not lights. The Son of Man only appears in the NT in that sense.

Mirrors reflect lights, like a lighthouse... And so what if Jesus is in the NT? He's described as a light, a source of illumination.

Revealed to whom?

Nobody, life hadn't been created yet

That would include plenty of non-sun stars.

Thats right, there's far more to the universe than stars we can see

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am defining God as all-existence/the Abolute - both manifest and unmanifest. So in that sense no one can live without God.

We wouldn't be so annoyed if you would just remember that this is your opinion, not an undisputed scientific fact.

I live without your god, or anyone else's god, just fine.

Well let's check some of it's claims then. We see every creature after it's own kind. That is what we see today, any change we see is butterfly into butterfly and so on. We certainly haven't seen evolution happening that we need for it to be true.

Tell that to the people trying to figure out how to stamp out the antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

BTW, "kind" is nowhere to be found in taxonomy. That's strictly an Old Testament word, and it's meaningless in biology.

If you believe the big bang then there are so many just so stories about it, especially when inflation happens. An event that starts suddenly and ends suddenly with no explanation as to how it started and stopped an yet while it happens all laws of physics are broken. It is just nonsense and much of what we observe today cannot be properly explained by the big bang.

Oh, did the universe stop expanding? Gosh, the astrophysicists must have forgotten to mention that.

 

[Berzerker]

The Light came first, and then the darkness. But the first day started out in the darkness, not the light.

The darkness came before the light, thats why the Hebrew day begins with nightfall. The light didn't even come second, the Earth without form, the darkness, the deep (tehom) and God's "spirit" or wind interacting with the water all came before "let there be light".

Now I suppose since the Hebrew day begins with nightfall its possible the authors of Genesis considered Gen 1:2 as the start of the 1st day and not the light, but the darkness (and water) preceded God and the light.

The Earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep and God's spirit hovered over the waters, and "then" God said, "Let there be Light". That light was a rotating planet with a new orbit closer to the sun.
There are too many similarities between the Earth and Moon and material found at the asteroid belt to be coincidence.

Your interpretation means the Earth without form and covered by water had no sun to orbit. I think it was further away from the sun and "creation" moved it closer. Given our water came from the asteroid belt where it is and was darker, which explanation is more logical?

Therefore that light was not from the sun, but it does fit the description of how the universe was lit up at the very beginning, and then the first day or time started in the darkness of the first recorded time frame Night. The next two days had no light.

How can there be days without light? The sun was the light, but the sun didn't receive its appointment to rule over Earth's sky yet because the Earth was still under water - the sun was shining on the ocean.

Remember, the Earth is the name God gave the dry land when it appeared on the 3rd day. The Earth's sky didn't exist before that because the dry land didn't exist yet. Genesis is giving God credit for making the continents, not the planet. The ocean was here first so that means the planet was here too...

The science tells us plate tectonics began ~4 bya and the continents began growing at plate boundaries and life started ~3.8 bya. And the science tells us our water and rock matches material found at the asteroid belt. Genesis tells us a dark water covered world became an illuminated world with land and life. I think the science and Genesis agree about the origin of this planet.

Why do you think the authors of Genesis refused to credit God with creating the water? Because virtually every middle eastern culture already knew the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian version of creation, Marduk didn't create Tiamat, Tiamat existed before Marduk. God did not create tehom, tehom existed before God. Their Genesis would contradict the established version of creation, they'd have no credibility.

Why would it not make sense that God created all the stars at the same time, and then allowed their light to shine after a period of darkness?

there ages vary

The logic of even have to say, "Let there be light" implies that there was no light any where in the universe, and this is stated after the statement that God created the universe.

God did not create the universe, God created Heaven and Earth and neither is the universe... The light is called day, that means the world was rotating near a star. The reason that star appears on the 4th day is because Genesis says it was appointed to rule over Earth's sky - the Earth didn't exist until the 3rd day.

 

[Arakhor]

You're wrong, creation myths claim water preceded continents and life and so does the science

So, we're back to cherry-picking when creation stories do fit 'the science'? I suppose it only took 200-something posts.

 

[Kyriakos]

If god is defined as 'everything', then i think people should engage that definition if they wish to speak against the view of a person having it. I think that 'everything' is a pretty important term by itself, so the tautology possibly just creates unneeded problems - unless the view is that this everything is conscious in a manner we think of consciousness, cause then it is a position different from 'everything' there is in the cosmos/cosmoi.

Personally i am surprised that people do not bother to examine what they or the other person is talking about when one uses the term 'god'. Chances are the other person doesn't mean the same as you, and often they mean something very clearly different

 

[Berzerker]

So, we're back to cherry-picking when creation stories do fit 'the science'? I suppose it only took 200-something posts.

you'd have to cherry pick the myths that dont fit the science because most do, including Genesis...you'd know that if you were familiar with the subject matter

 

[Sommerswerd]

Can you prove to a person looking up at the moon at night that it is not a light source? Even though it is just a reflection it is the moon that appears to be the light giver.

That is exactly, exactly the point. the person who wrote Genesis looking up at the night sky in ancient times would have no way of knowing that the moon is not a light because it appears to be one. Genesis makes perfect sense if you just acknowledge that it was written by a guy who had no understanding of science or astrophysics and was just trying to explain the origin of the universe as he knew it, which at the time was the lands around where he lived and nothing else... using the limited information he had at the time.

Genesis also clearly says the sky is a "dome", which again makes perfect sense given that people in those days thought the world was flat and the sky was a dome over the flat world, which also makes sens because the sky appears to curve and meet the land in the horizon, and ancient peoples would have no way of knowing that the this was not in fact the case. The sky seems like a dome, so the \Genesis author called it a dome. But its wrong, and the only way to deny this is to go back to "Oh its not wrong, its metaphorical!"

God did not say that the moon is the source of light, but that it would rule the night with light.

That is not correct. Here is the text:

14 Then God commanded, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate day from night and to show the time when days, years, and religious festivals[c] begin; 15 they will shine in the sky to give light to the earth”—and it was done. 16 So God made the two larger lights, the sun to rule over the day and the moon to rule over the night; he also made the stars. 17 He placed the lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God was pleased with what he saw. 19 Evening passed and morning came—that was the fourth day.

The Bible clearly says that the moon is a light and that god placed it in the sky to light the world at night. This is clearly wrong. What you are doing is something I am very familiar with, because, as I have said, I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist religion. You are trying to play fast and loose with the text where its clearly wrong, and appealing to what the text means rather than what it says. Then you go into a long appeal to metaphor... "Well when it says 'light' that could mean 'Jesus' and other such claims." I have heard it all before. Whenever the Bible is clearly wrong, fundamentalists say "No its not wrong its just metaphorical." I'm not convinced. The Bible says the moon is a light. It is not. The sun is a light.

I'll stop there because there is way too much incorrect stuff to respond to in your post.

 

[Arakhor]

you'd have to cherry pick the myths that dont fit the science because most do, including Genesis...you'd know that if you were familiar with the subject matter

You keep prattling on about "the science" as if it's one amorphous blob that somehow proves your case. Creationists do that a lot too, e.g. when focussing on genetic bottlenecks to 'prove' Noah's Ark. What's more, since so many creation myths mention all creation forming out of some sort of cosmic void, the specifics are often so vague as to be meaningless.

 

[Berzerker]

You keep prattling on about "the science" as if it's one amorphous blob that somehow proves your case. Creationists do that a lot too, e.g. when focussing on genetic bottlenecks to 'prove' Noah's Ark. What's more, since so many creation myths mention all creation forming out of some sort of cosmic void, the specifics are often so vague as to be meaningless.

You haven't addressed the science or the mythology, all I see are petty gripes about gotcha questions and cherry picking as if you dont ask questions designed to support your arguments.

And now its prattling... You dont see the hypocrisy in your complaints? I do... Are you cherry picking now? So many myths mention some sort of cosmic void? Talk about amorphous blobs... The myths mention a primordial ocean covering the land before being exposed and the appearance of life.

Either the science supports that or it doesn't...

and it does

so what science have you posted proving the myths wrong?