In the Beginning...

[Lexicus]

This is like bible fanfiction

So true.

 

[Leoreth]

That's why Spirit Science is so much better than what Berzerker and timtofly bring to this thread. Seriously, watch the video I posted a couple of days ago. It has weirdly-probably-unconscious-self-deprecating animations!

 

[Berzerker]

The South Pole gets sunlight, but I don't see Antarctica melting every summer.

How does that help your argument? You said removing the light/electricity would melt ice cubes. Remove the sun and those ice cubes stay frozen.

They didn't. My point is that while each culture invented stories to explain stuff, they were NOT the same.

Yes they do, the common theme is a dark water covered world preceded the dry land and life

They can't all be right, and not one of them has any evidence for why they think theirs is the correct version of events.

According to the science the world had surface water before plate tectonics and life appeared

It's a modern "a-ha!" hindsight interpretation. The Hebrews didn't come up with either the phrase or the concept of the Big Bang.

I agree, Genesis is a story about our locale, not the universe and its origin. But water may have preceded the big bang and it likely did if the big bang was preceded by a big crunch.

 

[Arakhor]

But water may have preceded the big bang and it likely did if the big bang was preceded by a big crunch.

Even in a thread that is near total speculation, that one takes the biscuit for the wildest, most unfalsifiable one yet.

 

[timtofly]

Did you arrive at this date via a dart board? I'm asking, because in the bible I read, the stuff about the flood occurred many, many pages before the stuff about Jesus. Why are you reshuffling the plot?

That is the beginning of the European histories. What happened in the past was pretty much set in concrete, and most of what was known would be known. Even the point that some anthropologist thought the ancients sat around and made things up. I think there were some people at all times who tried to come in and change what people had been taught and re-write history in their own agenda or reasoning. I am not sure why the normal history was a deception and the "new" information was the truth. Seems to be a bad way to do history. That would mean that when it was happening and observable it was a lie. Later humans "magically" new what actually happened?

I'd go with the phrase "willfully obtuse."
What description - for entertainment purposes only?
I don't actually find this entertaining.
It's not easy when either of you post humongous walls of text that reiterate the same nonsense you've posted a dozen times already.

I agree, that is why I don't always break up a wall and insert a comment.

You don't seem to have understood my point that it was the oral tradition that was made up by humans in the first place.

That is a fabricated myth. There are people groups who have just recently switched from oral to written accounting of their history. I suppose any thing about their history should be suspect, because it was only given through oral means their whole existence. The USA and Canadian experience started out with writing and still keeps a record going. It seems unwise to lump every single group of humans into one general way of doing things. In a lot of cases writing was in use and readily available. That their history was always written is not easily dismissed, but I guess one is free to believe anything they want.

It doesn't matter if you write it down, make graffiti pictures on walls, carve a stele, use cuneiform, paint a depiction on canvas, or type it into a computer and hit the 'submit' button on a gaming forum. None of that will make the original stories any less made-up by humans than they were.

You are making that up, right? No matter how often you post that the Ancients were making things up, your original thought is still a fabrication made up by another human. And nothing you say about it will make it any less so.

You've been all over the place about the flood. Or don't you recall one or two other threads where we had this same argument? You grasp at pretty much anything, no matter how fanciful and ridiculous, just to attempt to "prove" that it really happened. You've changed your mind numerous times, so I really have to doubt your claim to use it as a "reference point" - because you can't make up your mind where you want that reference point to be.

Technically, this thread is not about the Flood, so I am not sure what the fixation on the details is all about. I already mentioned that the Flood event was not important to me, why am I being accused of grasping at things to prove it happened? I have pointed out that some humans in the past think that it happened and others did not. But only in context of an event where modern human's came into the picture, and events surrounding that point. What makes you say that I keep moving when that event happened?

What part of "Marduk was invented by humans and all the stories about him are just made-up stories" is too difficult to grasp?

What part of getting their facts mixed up is them not making things up?

Modern science has a whole list of facts. They do not make them up. The way they use those facts is "making things" up. Unless it is actually observed, how does one know they are not just "made up" points of a fabricated story. Who believes that any one split the earth in half? Who believes that the universe was split in half? What part of a story is imagined and what part is observed? Who are we to claim they did not have any facts? We do not have to accept their imagined tales, but can we say with certainty they did not have facts. They just told those facts in an imaginative way. It would seem that some try to avoid any imagination at all, so why even try to form a tale about when things happened before they were observed? Is that not fabricating the past?

I'm not the one insisting this. You're the one who thinks God makes special full-term babies in a laboratory and gives them to their mothers a few hours later. The most I'm prepared to concede here is that IF Jesus existed, he was fully human - had a human mother and a human father, and was in no way supernatural, divine, or any other such nonsense.

And I really hope you're not suggesting that Jesus should have mated with his siblings. That's something that was (and still is) taboo in nearly every culture in the world. The only exception I know of is the Egyptians, who kept their dynasties going (at least in some generations) via brother/sister marriages.

God does not need a laboratory. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. I think that is what got him killed. Some say it was because he started a riot, but that seems a little spurious, and Pilate proclaimed Jesus, King of the Jews. The Jews complained, because they had said that Jesus thought he was the King of the Jews. IMO, it was more than being a King. Caesar was "God" on earth. Jesus claiming to be God, was an excuse to claim he was attempting to overthrow Caesar himself. Pilate must have seen the ruse and proclaimed him King, just to mock their subterfuge.

If Jesus was a different species, he would not have been able to mate with any human, much less siblings. Were there not more religions at the time that made sex an integral part of the religion, than those who refrained? Sex was part of the connection between the spiritual and carnal in the rituals being performed. The Hebrews and other religions that taught one God, viewed that pureness and avoiding the carnal desires, was the only way to approach God.

Could you rephrase this paragraph? It's not clear.

Jesus allegedly made claims and performed acts that would be considered a "superhero". If he only had an earthly mother, then he was a mutation or half-bread of a different species not to be considered human. A mutation is something normally done in a lab. Although some claim it has happened in nature all by itself. I am not sure that humans have ethically allowed themselves to actually carry out mutations in a lab. Why limit the experience to being unobserved in the "wild"? It would seem that if humans could pull it off, they would literally consider themselves gods.

Which people, and what claim? You quoted several of my paragraphs, but it's unclear to which of them you're referring.

I usually name a specific people group when I talk about them. Sumerians, Akkadian, Egyptians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Chippewa, Greeks, etc. AFAIK, philosophers are the only part of a society who actually sit down and contemplate the "why" of life that get's passed down into the general knowledge of a people group. The majority of the group just repeats what they were taught, without any questioning, unless they become philosophers, and able to sway the direction of development.

We're talking about reproduction and heredity. You just made the claim that Jesus was of a different species, which is ridiculous.

Not any more ridiculous than claiming that one species evolves into another one. I guess humans get to pick and choose what species gets to evolve and which do not, based on the ridiculousness of the event?

You completely missed my point. You said that light is necessary for liquid water. What happens when you have a tray of ice cubes in the freezer and the electricity gets turned off? The freezer doesn't work, and everything in it thaws. The ice cubes become liquid water, and this all happens without light.

This is ridiculous.

Light is not a singular "thing", unless you want to use light as just the photon that we observe exist. It is a wide spectrum of effects as a result of nuclear reactions.

I did not say liquid water needed light. I said water was not water, before the light event. The narrative is from the perspective of one living on the earth. It would not make sense if it was written that in the beginning Mars was created and surrounded by an endless ocean of nothingness. Then there was an event that produced light and Mars started to form out of this ocean of nothingness. If earth is where you are when you write down the account, even if it was not literally there, it is still the point you are talking about in the narrative.

Do you realize how many sunrises and sunsets a person on the space station can experience in one year, or one day? What if one is travelling between stars? What is ridiculous about a time when stars do not have any light? The North and South poles experience months of near darkness, and months of "endless" light. The Eskimos still consider a day, a day. And yes the Antarctica experiences huge amounts of melting and refreezing over the course of a year, although some melting and freezing cycles last over longer periods of time.

You're accusing me of making up something that anthropologists have known for longer than I've been alive?

They made it up, just like the stories in the bible were made up, to explain things. Questions such as "where did we come from" and "where did the world come from" and "what are those twinkling lights in the night sky"... there's not a single culture on this planet that didn't ask these questions. However, instead of an honest "I don't know; let's figure it out," most of them just made up stories to explain the answers.

We have technology and the scientific method to figure out answers nowadays. But sadly, there are people who insist on clinging to ancient oral traditions that are only stories and are nowhere near reality.

The point of asking questions today is what drives science, but we do not accuse modern science of making things up. Unless of course that is the nature of things and everything is just made up? Nowhere in the Bible does it say they sat down and asked questions, and then came up with ideas to explain life. According to you they were not capable of doing that, because they were not scientist nor historians. According to them, they met a bright light and this bright light gave them all the information they wrote down and attempted to live by. Their traditions did not evolve. They were there from the beginning of their written account until they were captured by the Babylonians. The captivity only lasted 70 years and then they rebuilt their Temple and kept going until the Romans finally destroyed their last temple, and it has not been rebuilt since 70 AD. I am not being obtuse. They had it in writing at the same time they had it orally. The Hebrews had both oral and written tradition going at the same time. Are you claiming that the whole of the Hebrew people made up and believed the most elaborate lie in history? Even Modern Hebrew scholars still claim that the written and oral tradition was given to them at the same time, and neither evolved separate of the other. That has been a stated fact since the start of both the oral and written account.

As for astrology and the occult, which would include North American Indians, it is not a made up explanation for life. It is connected to a reality that cannot be observed, but that does not make it any less of a reality. It has been replaced by modern thinking that believes it has eradicated such a reality. It is not eradicated, people just do not allow that reality as part of their life any more. The practice has been eradicated, but not the reality. Astrology and the occult was never supposed to be trusted in the first place. Maybe at one time it was a two way form of communication. It definitely is no longer that way, and the only thing left is imagination and stray thoughts. Ask Leoreth about it.

Every generation questions the previous generation's ideas and beliefs to some extent. That is natural even if one is not considered a scientist, or historian. Those who do and stick with it become the thinkers and inventors who follow their thoughts and through trial and error, add knowledge to the human experience. Please show where in the ancient text that they actually stated they were trying to figure life out. It may be understood that humans have always done that, but why is observation only a modern human trait? They wrote what they observed and experienced. They passed down that observation both orally and in written form. Is that a good way of getting the information passed down correctly? Those are the only ways. I am not sure though that after a certain point it can be distinguished from what was imagined and what actually was observed, or that the way they even expressed what they observed was put down as an actual "snapshot" or an alternate "made up" representation.

Even the Chippewa creation account does not state they were sitting there asking questions about life. It says they were doing nothing. They were beings without any motion or life. An outside being came to them and gave them all the information to start doing anything in life. All their life experiences where explained to them by this being. That explanation does not seem "made up" by later generations. That is the account that was passed down since the event that the event talked about.

IMO they were clay bodies, that were brought to life, and they immediately received all the information they needed about life. There was no need to go back and contemplate where they came from or why. They knew that from the moment their clay bodies were "turned" on.

You're going to have to show me where the phrase "big bang" occurs in Genesis. Really. I've read Genesis, and it's not there.

What do you think the point of saying let light happen and then that light was physically separated into an equal amount of light and darkness means? Light was not created. It does not say God made light. It said let light be. Now that everything was in place, let it happen. There was no rotating planet!! I do not think that it was an explosion or "big bang" either. That is what some person said happened to get the universe "booted". I do not think there was a planet either before this happened. There was a vast form (an endless ocean) in the shape of a universe (14 billion light years across?). And when light happened, The whole universe was light at one time, and then that light was equally divided between light and darkness almost evenly throughout the universe. That was the beginning of the first nebulae that filled the entire universe. There was no expansion for a period of time. Then the nebulae started forming stars, and the universe was in motion. It would seem that a lot of ancients thought the universe was vast before this event. Whoever came up with the Big Bang thought that it started at one point, and the explosion itself spread "something" around the whole universe for some unknown distance. Then modern scientist tried to figure out the math to explain rapid expansion, and then no expansion, and now accelerating expansion.

Genesis does not say there was a "big bang". That would be misleading. I use "big bang", because that seems to be what modern people call the event. They may have changed the name now.

Not to mention, of course, that it's ridiculous to say that water existed before the universe itself. There wasn't any until oxygen came along - and that had to wait for the first generation of supernovae.

I don't think that it was water either, but that is what they came up with to describe an empty and void universe, before there was motion and energy. In any ancient text, the universe was said to start out as a vast ocean, but it was not water. It just "looked" like a swirling ocean of nothingness. Are you saying that you have never seen an occult rendering of the cosmos?

 

[Berzerker]

Even in a thread that is near total speculation, that one takes the biscuit for the wildest, most unfalsifiable one yet.

why??

 

[Agent327]

This is like bible fanfiction or something. Not sure where the anti-science comes from though. I mean, if someone holds a canon of sacred text to be literally true then you can understand how someone could disbelieve evolution.

Not really. The Bible and evolution have quite literally no connection. But even if one takes the Bible to be literally true, it should be obvious that the Genesis creation story is nonsensical to the point of immorality. Creating the human race from just two people means genetic degeneration beyond belief. In short, the human race would have gone long extinct before being able to write a single bible book. The fact that it not only survived, but managed to write a multitude of bible books, already disproves the literal truth of the Genesis story. As you see, there's no need to bring evolution into the equation even.

That is the beginning of the European histories.

If you are referring to the Christian historiography rooted in the Middle Ages, those tend to begin with Creation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How does that help your argument? You said removing the light/electricity would melt ice cubes. Remove the sun and those ice cubes stay frozen.

The claim was that light causes water to be liquid. That's sheer nonsense. There's no light inside a freezer. Remove the electricity - aka the source of energy that makes the freezer run properly - and the ice cubes melt. They become liquid. No light was necessary.

Remove the Sun and there's no planet on which to even have this conversation.

Yes they do, the common theme is a dark water covered world preceded the dry land and life

This is probably going to come as a shock to you, but this is not a theme used by every culture.

I agree, Genesis is a story about our locale, not the universe and its origin. But water may have preceded the big bang and it likely did if the big bang was preceded by a big crunch.

Pretty neat trick, having water before oxygen was created in supernova explosions. And don't insult me by saying space aliens did it, or that it was always there. It wasn't. The early universe didn't have any oxygen, therefore it didn't have any water.

What part of "God created the heavens and the Earth" is not somebody's notion of how the universe was created?

That is the beginning of the European histories. What happened in the past was pretty much set in concrete, and most of what was known would be known. Even the point that some anthropologist thought the ancients sat around and made things up. I think there were some people at all times who tried to come in and change what people had been taught and re-write history in their own agenda or reasoning. I am not sure why the normal history was a deception and the "new" information was the truth. Seems to be a bad way to do history. That would mean that when it was happening and observable it was a lie. Later humans "magically" new what actually happened?

When you tell a child stories about Santa Claus, you're sitting around, making things up. Quick, what's on your list of favorite Christmas songs? I rather enjoy "The Little Drummer Boy" - it's a cute story and I like the melody. It's enjoyable to play on the organ. But it's a made-up story that's even more made-up than what it's based on. There was no little drummer boy in the nativity story in the NT.

You just told us that people have been debating since the flood about Jesus. What does this have to do with the year 500 CE? That's NOT when history started in Europe (the Greeks and Romans had their own historians who wrote things down). Since the story of Jesus is basically said to have been over and done with by 33 CE (during the reign of Tiberius Caesar), why are you claiming that the flood happened between then and now? That's not the spot in the bible where it says the flood happened. I'm starting to get the impression that with every new post you make in this thread, you just rip the pages out of these books, play 52 Pick-up with them, and claim everything happened in the order that you pick the pages up off the floor.

Honestly, how can you not understand that the "new information" you attribute to "magic" is actually based on careful archaeological excavation and study? I'd have more respect for these bible stories if there was evidence to back them up, but there isn't.

Can you recite yesterday's news from memory, without looking it up? Didn't think so. Neither can I, by the way. If we tried, we'd get some details wrong, we'd omit or add things, and probably slant the story to suit our own views. And that's just over a 24-hour period. There's no way that an oral tradition can possibly be completely accurate over centuries. Nobody has that good a memory. And of course things were altered in being written down, particularly when translated from language to language.

Some languages lack words to express certain ideas - that's something one of my typing clients told me about when I still did typing for college and university students. She's Cree, and her first language is Cree. She was frustrated when trying to write her anthropology papers because there are some concepts that are present in the Cree language but not in English. So she had to make do with a roundabout way of expressing these ideas, and of course the nuances she wanted to discuss got lost in the translation. That was less than 30 years ago, in a time when we had extensive libraries and the beginning of the internet we take for granted nowadays. Now think about the problems encountered over decades, centuries, and millennia.

I agree, that is why I don't always break up a wall and insert a comment.

You didn't answer my question. To which of my paragraphs were you referring?

That is a fabricated myth. There are people groups who have just recently switched from oral to written accounting of their history. I suppose any thing about their history should be suspect, because it was only given through oral means their whole existence. The USA and Canadian experience started out with writing and still keeps a record going. It seems unwise to lump every single group of humans into one general way of doing things. In a lot of cases writing was in use and readily available. That their history was always written is not easily dismissed, but I guess one is free to believe anything they want.

There have been people in North America for over 14,000 years. Are you trying to tell me they started with writing?

Nope, they didn't. A written form for many of the Native languages is a relatively recent thing. In the Canadian territory of Nunavut, you'll see bilingual road signs - in Inuktitut and English. So they now have an easier way to keep track of their history, but still... you can't tell me that history has come down to them, pure and unedited, for all the millennia that they've lived there.

You are making that up, right? No matter how often you post that the Ancients were making things up, your original thought is still a fabrication made up by another human. And nothing you say about it will make it any less so.

No, I'm not "making it up." I'm not the one in this conversation who's spinning pages and pages of pseudoscientific drivel and pretending it's real history.

Technically, this thread is not about the Flood, so I am not sure what the fixation on the details is all about. I already mentioned that the Flood event was not important to me, why am I being accused of grasping at things to prove it happened? I have pointed out that some humans in the past think that it happened and others did not. But only in context of an event where modern human's came into the picture, and events surrounding that point. What makes you say that I keep moving when that event happened?

You've been posting your flood fantasy material for quite some time, certainly long before this thread came along. You're the one who originally brought it up, so don't complain they get contradicted by people who don't look at science as one big conspiracy.

I say you keep moving the goal posts on the flood date because that's what you've been doing. This has happened in other threads besides this one.

What part of getting their facts mixed up is them not making things up?

Modern science has a whole list of facts. They do not make them up. The way they use those facts is "making things" up. Unless it is actually observed, how does one know they are not just "made up" points of a fabricated story. Who believes that any one split the earth in half? Who believes that the universe was split in half? What part of a story is imagined and what part is observed? Who are we to claim they did not have any facts? We do not have to accept their imagined tales, but can we say with certainty they did not have facts. They just told those facts in an imaginative way. It would seem that some try to avoid any imagination at all, so why even try to form a tale about when things happened before they were observed? Is that not fabricating the past?

So when a parent tells a child that thunder happens because the angels are bowling in heaven, that has something to do with "facts"? What about the stork/cabbage patch version of where babies come from - are you saying that anything about either of those are factual?

So when a dendrochronologist studies tree rings and says, this indicates a year of drought, and that one indicates a year of flooding, he's just making things up? Get real. Honestly.

And don't confuse scientists with people who have no imagination. Carl Sagan used to read Edgar Rice Burroughs barbarian fantasy novels when he was young, and when he was an adult, he wrote a science fiction novel, called Contact. It was later adapted to movie form, and starred Jodie Foster. Some of it's pretty imaginative stuff. And yet Sagan kept his scientific feet firmly in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" camp.

You may be confusing hypothesizing with "making things up." The difference is that any scientist worth the title will try to test his/her hypothesis, and be willing to be proved wrong.

God does not need a laboratory. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. I think that is what got him killed. Some say it was because he started a riot, but that seems a little spurious, and Pilate proclaimed Jesus, King of the Jews. The Jews complained, because they had said that Jesus thought he was the King of the Jews. IMO, it was more than being a King. Caesar was "God" on earth. Jesus claiming to be God, was an excuse to claim he was attempting to overthrow Caesar himself. Pilate must have seen the ruse and proclaimed him King, just to mock their subterfuge.

Tiberius Caesar was never deified, either before or after his death, so no, he was not "God on earth."

You're the one who claimed that God was able to make a baby by what we would consider in vitro fertilization, force-grow the fetus to a full-term baby within a few hours, and present the mother with her bundle of joy and she didn't have to do a thing, including have sex. Unless your God just did all this in thin air or thought it up, he'd have needed a laboratory.

If Jesus was a different species, he would not have been able to mate with any human, much less siblings. Were there not more religions at the time that made sex an integral part of the religion, than those who refrained? Sex was part of the connection between the spiritual and carnal in the rituals being performed. The Hebrews and other religions that taught one God, viewed that pureness and avoiding the carnal desires, was the only way to approach God.

Why are you obsessing about Jesus mating with his siblings? That was taboo in that culture.

Jesus allegedly made claims and performed acts that would be considered a "superhero". If he only had an earthly mother, then he was a mutation or half-bread of a different species not to be considered human. A mutation is something normally done in a lab. Although some claim it has happened in nature all by itself. I am not sure that humans have ethically allowed themselves to actually carry out mutations in a lab. Why limit the experience to being unobserved in the "wild"? It would seem that if humans could pull it off, they would literally consider themselves gods.

Oh, for crying out loud... Do you understand what mutations are? They're what happens when DNA fails to replicate correctly. Yes, it happens in nature. If nothing ever mutated until labs were invented, we wouldn't be here, because evolution on this planet would have been stalled almost from the get-go.

Yes, genetic engineering is, as the phrase goes, "a thing." It's mostly been done on plants, to figure out how to produce higher crop yields that are more resistant to insects and disease. If there were a way to guarantee that no geneticist would ever use this technology unethically with humans, we could be a hell of a lot closer to curing cancer than we are.

Not any more ridiculous than claiming that one species evolves into another one. I guess humans get to pick and choose what species gets to evolve and which do not, based on the ridiculousness of the event?

The difference is that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution. There is zero evidence for this fanciful notion that Jesus was in a species all by himself.

Do you realize how many sunrises and sunsets a person on the space station can experience in one year, or one day? What if one is travelling between stars? What is ridiculous about a time when stars do not have any light? The North and South poles experience months of near darkness, and months of "endless" light. The Eskimos still consider a day, a day. And yes the Antarctica experiences huge amounts of melting and refreezing over the course of a year, although some melting and freezing cycles last over longer periods of time.

If you're traveling between stars, you're not experiencing any sunrises or sunsets.

The only times when stars don't have light are when they are either proto-stars in which nuclear fusion hasn't begun, or after they're dead (gone supernova, become a black hole, become a black dwarf, etc.).

The point of asking questions today is what drives science, but we do not accuse modern science of making things up.

You just did that earlier in your post.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say they sat down and asked questions, and then came up with ideas to explain life. According to you they were not capable of doing that, because they were not scientist nor historians.

According to me, they were able to sit down, ask questions, and make up answers. According to me (and archaeologists and historians), they lacked the technology to find the answers to these questions. Sometimes they just didn't ask the right question to stimulate someone to think of the correct answer.

Do stop putting words on my screen that I never typed, 'k?

According to them, they met a bright light and this bright light gave them all the information they wrote down and attempted to live by. Their traditions did not evolve. They were there from the beginning of their written account until they were captured by the Babylonians. The captivity only lasted 70 years and then they rebuilt their Temple and kept going until the Romans finally destroyed their last temple, and it has not been rebuilt since 70 AD. I am not being obtuse. They had it in writing at the same time they had it orally. The Hebrews had both oral and written tradition going at the same time. Are you claiming that the whole of the Hebrew people made up and believed the most elaborate lie in history? Even Modern Hebrew scholars still claim that the written and oral tradition was given to them at the same time, and neither evolved separate of the other. That has been a stated fact since the start of both the oral and written account.

And you really believe that they met a bright light and the bright light talked to them? Evidence, please. That's something that falls under the "extraordinary claim" heading.

You've been willfully obtuse about many things in our conversations. I don't know why you insist on moving so many goal posts, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me to come back to this thread tomorrow and see that you've moved them yet again.

As for astrology and the occult, which would include North American Indians, it is not a made up explanation for life. It is connected to a reality that cannot be observed, but that does not make it any less of a reality. It has been replaced by modern thinking that believes it has eradicated such a reality. It is not eradicated, people just do not allow that reality as part of their life any more. The practice has been eradicated, but not the reality. Astrology and the occult was never supposed to be trusted in the first place. Maybe at one time it was a two way form of communication. It definitely is no longer that way, and the only thing left is imagination and stray thoughts. Ask Leoreth about it.

What do the North American Indians have to do with astrology and the occult? The brand of astrology I'm familiar with has to do with planets that have Roman names and constellations based on Greek myths. The ancient Romans and Greeks were never in North America (though SF author Robert Silverberg wrote a series of alt-history stories in which the Roman Empire never fell, they kept on fighting the Greeks and Egyptians, and when they finally made it to North America they discovered that the Vikings had beaten them there and were trading with the Aztecs).

Every generation questions the previous generation's ideas and beliefs to some extent. That is natural even if one is not considered a scientist, or historian.

I never said that only scientists and historians are allowed to ask questions and test the previous generation's ideas and beliefs. That's how change happens, for better or worse.

Those who do and stick with it become the thinkers and inventors who follow their thoughts and through trial and error, add knowledge to the human experience. Please show where in the ancient text that they actually stated they were trying to figure life out. It may be understood that humans have always done that, but why is observation only a modern human trait?

I never said it was only a modern human trait.

They wrote what they observed and experienced. They passed down that observation both orally and in written form. Is that a good way of getting the information passed down correctly? Those are the only ways. I am not sure though that after a certain point it can be distinguished from what was imagined and what actually was observed, or that the way they even expressed what they observed was put down as an actual "snapshot" or an alternate "made up" representation.

Can you give an accurate account of yesterday's news from memory? Or would you have to look it up to give an accurate account? It seems obvious to me that writing is a better way of passing knowledge along, and this is one reason why I think it's so important to keep teaching kids how to write without relying on electronics to do it.

Even the Chippewa creation account does not state they were sitting there asking questions about life. It says they were doing nothing. They were beings without any motion or life. An outside being came to them and gave them all the information to start doing anything in life. All their life experiences where explained to them by this being. That explanation does not seem "made up" by later generations. That is the account that was passed down since the event that the event talked about.

You keep missing the point that it was the original story that was made up.

What do you think the point of saying let light happen and then that light was physically separated into an equal amount of light and darkness means? Light was not created. It does not say God made light. It said let light be. Now that everything was in place, let it happen. There was no rotating planet!! I do not think that it was an explosion or "big bang" either. That is what some person said happened to get the universe "booted". I do not think there was a planet either before this happened. There was a vast form (an endless ocean) in the shape of a universe (14 billion light years across?). And when light happened, The whole universe was light at one time, and then that light was equally divided between light and darkness almost evenly throughout the universe. That was the beginning of the first nebulae that filled the entire universe. There was no expansion for a period of time. Then the nebulae started forming stars, and the universe was in motion. It would seem that a lot of ancients thought the universe was vast before this event. Whoever came up with the Big Bang thought that it started at one point, and the explosion itself spread "something" around the whole universe for some unknown distance. Then modern scientist tried to figure out the math to explain rapid expansion, and then no expansion, and now accelerating expansion.

Modern scientists are continuing to try to figure this out. Sometimes they'll be wrong, and when that happens they re-evaluate the data and try again.

Are you saying that you have never seen an occult rendering of the cosmos?

It would help if you'd define it.

 

[Arakhor]

why??

Do you seriously need me to explain why it is pointless to speculate about anything before the single time and space 13.7 billion years ago from which everything in the known universe descends? (At least in so much as there can be a 'before' prior to the initial expansion of the universe.)

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Not really. The Bible and evolution have quite literally no connection. But even if one takes the Bible to be literally true, it should be obvious that the Genesis creation story is nonsensical to the point of immorality. Creating the human race from just two people means genetic degeneration beyond belief. In short, the human race would have gone long extinct before being able to write a single bible book. The fact that it not only survived, but managed to write a multitude of bible books, already disproves the literal truth of the Genesis story. As you see, there's no need to bring evolution into the equation even.

To be fair to the Bible/Genesis, it doesn't actually concretely say that God only made one man and one woman and that all of humanity descended from them. This may be the traditional Christian view, but it's not actually specified in the text (which is true about a fair few traditional Christian views actually). In fact there are things in the text that directly contradict that reading, such as the fact that Cain encounters loads of other people once he is exiled by God.

 

[Leoreth]

I think this thread already reached that argument at least once. Pointing out that Genesis has multiple independent creation accounts did not stop Berzerker from claiming they are consistent by making more logical leaps than Miko Miyazaki.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

They can be read consistently though. They're only inconsistent if you insist on reading them as "story of how humans were created A" and "story of how humans were created B". Which is most likely what they actually are, but as they're written down all you actually get is firstly a general story of how God created the world, life and humans, and then secondly a story about how he created 2 specific individuals and some plants and animals in one specific location. There's no inherent contradiction between the two (at least not as far as I recall) and nothing to say they couldn't both have happened consecutively (or even partially concurrently). Indeed the very fact that Cain goes on to encounter other humans after he is exiled is perfectly consistent with that reading. In fact I'd probably go as far as saying that if you're trying to interpret it as one coherent whole, that's the only logical way to read it. Which is why it surprises me that Christians don't seem to.

 

[timtofly]

What part of "God created the heavens and the Earth" is not somebody's notion of how the universe was created?

Are you against the notion of Aliens being evolved before the Earth even formed? I am just curious, because you seem to believe that humans are the only beings in the universe capable of advanced thought.

When you tell a child stories about Santa Claus, you're sitting around, making things up. Quick, what's on your list of favorite Christmas songs? I rather enjoy "The Little Drummer Boy" - it's a cute story and I like the melody. It's enjoyable to play on the organ. But it's a made-up story that's even more made-up than what it's based on. There was no little drummer boy in the nativity story in the NT.

You just told us that people have been debating since the flood about Jesus. What does this have to do with the year 500 CE? That's NOT when history started in Europe (the Greeks and Romans had their own historians who wrote things down). Since the story of Jesus is basically said to have been over and done with by 33 CE (during the reign of Tiberius Caesar), why are you claiming that the flood happened between then and now? That's not the spot in the bible where it says the flood happened. I'm starting to get the impression that with every new post you make in this thread, you just rip the pages out of these books, play 52 Pick-up with them, and claim everything happened in the order that you pick the pages up off the floor.

I barely read books to my kids, much less told them any bed time stories. I do not recall telling them anything that I made up. That would be lying and/or deceitful. I have told them about stories from my child hood about what happened to me or my parents and grandparents. Things have changed so much, some things seem pretty alien to them, that I took for granted, like "not wearing seat belts". I am not a religious person and have not consciously taught them any religious ideas on any topic. I have posted more in this thread alone, than I have ever mentioned to my kids.

I said that they were debating on what a Son of God was since the time of the Flood. You pointed out that Tiberius Caesar was not deified, so it would seem that Jesus was the last human that a claim of divinity was made about, until the Catholics centuries later decided to create a Pope with that aspect.

The whole issue started when I claimed Adam was a Son of God, instead of an evolved hominid. Berzerker was equating the blood of the dead gods as some kind of mechanism for evolving human life. It then went to the point that there were many male and female humans created at the same time and Adam was one of them. But from the account he seems too different. It just seems to me that at some point humans stopped being Sons of God. Now you may claim that they never were, but that is not what the text says that this thread is commenting on. From what I have heard, the ancients used to discuss how many angels could fit on the head of a needle?

I am to believe that they just made up these angels and then debated what they could do. I guess they did not have theater yet for entertainment.

Honestly, how can you not understand that the "new information" you attribute to "magic" is actually based on careful archaeological excavation and study? I'd have more respect for these bible stories if there was evidence to back them up, but there isn't.

Can you recite yesterday's news from memory, without looking it up? Didn't think so. Neither can I, by the way. If we tried, we'd get some details wrong, we'd omit or add things, and probably slant the story to suit our own views. And that's just over a 24-hour period. There's no way that an oral tradition can possibly be completely accurate over centuries. Nobody has that good a memory. And of course things were altered in being written down, particularly when translated from language to language.

Some languages lack words to express certain ideas - that's something one of my typing clients told me about when I still did typing for college and university students. She's Cree, and her first language is Cree. She was frustrated when trying to write her anthropology papers because there are some concepts that are present in the Cree language but not in English. So she had to make do with a roundabout way of expressing these ideas, and of course the nuances she wanted to discuss got lost in the translation. That was less than 30 years ago, in a time when we had extensive libraries and the beginning of the internet we take for granted nowadays. Now think about the problems encountered over decades, centuries, and millennia.

Yesterday's news hardly explains what happened in North America 300 years ago. It would seem to me that humans have forgotten to remember anything. They really do not have to any more. Sometimes it is hard to comprehend that there are people around the world who can speak 3 languages fluently, and we complain locally that our kids do not know math and science skills, and they cannot even speak English. Humans are very capable of retaining information. I do not see the issue that you are trying to claim that humans cannot retain knowledge for long periods of time. I do not see that much information being added from 2000 BC to even 500 AD. Have you seen what is even in the first 5 books of the Bible? Would any one today even be able to memorize the whole of it? Even the Quran in 500 AD is not as long, and Muslims claim all that information was retained and passed down orally. They even added information. Memorization was important when I was growing up and it was not that difficult, but kids, today, do not even see the need. Everything is online, whether it is true or not.

You didn't answer my question. To which of my paragraphs were you referring?

All of them.

There have been people in North America for over 14,000 years. Are you trying to tell me they started with writing?

Nope, they didn't. A written form for many of the Native languages is a relatively recent thing. In the Canadian territory of Nunavut, you'll see bilingual road signs - in Inuktitut and English. So they now have an easier way to keep track of their history, but still... you can't tell me that history has come down to them, pure and unedited, for all the millennia that they've lived there.

The North American Indian's way of life is not that complicated and full of detail. I am not even going to try to get into the mind of any of them, and point out what they think or even teach. For the most part, they were pretty isolated, and had no outside information that would change anything for 10,000 years. I am sure their lives were rich in detail about animals, and the natural life around them, but they did not have to retain much information as it relates to even 17th century technology, much less everything that happened yesterday in Toronto, or New York City.

No, I'm not "making it up." I'm not the one in this conversation who's spinning pages and pages of pseudoscientific drivel and pretending it's real history.

You've been posting your flood fantasy material for quite some time, certainly long before this thread came along. You're the one who originally brought it up, so don't complain they get contradicted by people who don't look at science as one big conspiracy.

I say you keep moving the goal posts on the flood date because that's what you've been doing. This has happened in other threads besides this one.

This thread is not in the History section, and I have not seen any one claim it should be there, but you. I do not start threads in the History section about the Flood. I do make a comment when another poster mentions it, but afaik I have not initiated any topic on the Flood. I am not sure if you accept the birth of Jesus as dividing between time periods, but the people during the time of Jesus seemed to think the Flood was also a division between time periods. I am not sure why some people make a big deal about it, and I realize that it probably offends them. If there is another way to easily view what has happened in the last 10,000 years and break it down into chunks, I would be glad to use it. I apologize if my usage of the Flood, and the birth of Jesus as pointing out references in time was misleading or confusing. I guess there are some people who know exactly when the Flood happened, but people in 3,000 BC seem to think that it happened before they were alive. North American Indians say it happened 10,000 years ago, but you seem not to take their oral traditions as meaning that much. I guess there have not been that many notable floods since that one, unless the one prying the information out of them was asking leading questions. Other than that, I am not the one trying to re-write the Flood accounts that some ancients claimed happened.

So when a parent tells a child that thunder happens because the angels are bowling in heaven, that has something to do with "facts"? What about the stork/cabbage patch version of where babies come from - are you saying that anything about either of those are factual?

So when a dendrochronologist studies tree rings and says, this indicates a year of drought, and that one indicates a year of flooding, he's just making things up? Get real. Honestly.

And don't confuse scientists with people who have no imagination. Carl Sagan used to read Edgar Rice Burroughs barbarian fantasy novels when he was young, and when he was an adult, he wrote a science fiction novel, called Contact. It was later adapted to movie form, and starred Jodie Foster. Some of it's pretty imaginative stuff. And yet Sagan kept his scientific feet firmly in the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" camp.

You may be confusing hypothesizing with "making things up." The difference is that any scientist worth the title will try to test his/her hypothesis, and be willing to be proved wrong.

I am not sure how any of this has to do with claiming that one species eventually led to all species.

Tiberius Caesar was never deified, either before or after his death, so no, he was not "God on earth."

You're the one who claimed that God was able to make a baby by what we would consider in vitro fertilization, force-grow the fetus to a full-term baby within a few hours, and present the mother with her bundle of joy and she didn't have to do a thing, including have sex. Unless your God just did all this in thin air or thought it up, he'd have needed a laboratory.

Why are you obsessing about Jesus mating with his siblings? That was taboo in that culture.

I agree, the Jews had no grounds to condemn Jesus to death. I make no claims on the details. The Hebrews claim the universe came into being as soon as God thought it. Scientist claim the universe came into being even sooner. No one is claiming to explain the details of how that worked. I keep saying that scientist need time. I need time to even post this. God does not need time, but that seems to be a useless fact to point out to one who says there is no God. If there is no God, why quibble over what a God can or cannot do?

Oh, for crying out loud... Do you understand what mutations are? They're what happens when DNA fails to replicate correctly. Yes, it happens in nature. If nothing ever mutated until labs were invented, we wouldn't be here, because evolution on this planet would have been stalled almost from the get-go.

Yes, genetic engineering is, as the phrase goes, "a thing." It's mostly been done on plants, to figure out how to produce higher crop yields that are more resistant to insects and disease. If there were a way to guarantee that no geneticist would ever use this technology unethically with humans, we could be a hell of a lot closer to curing cancer than we are.


The difference is that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution. There is zero evidence for this fanciful notion that Jesus was in a species all by himself.

People did not accept that Jesus was God either.

If you're traveling between stars, you're not experiencing any sunrises or sunsets.

The only times when stars don't have light are when they are either proto-stars in which nuclear fusion hasn't begun, or after they're dead (gone supernova, become a black hole, become a black dwarf, etc.).

You were complaining about what a day meant.

You just did that earlier in your post.

You accept that one species can change into another one.

According to me, they were able to sit down, ask questions, and make up answers. According to me (and archaeologists and historians), they lacked the technology to find the answers to these questions. Sometimes they just didn't ask the right question to stimulate someone to think of the correct answer.

Do stop putting words on my screen that I never typed, 'k? .

Humans may be capable of contemplating life, but that does not mean every single human does. You are claiming they did something that they themselves have not even claimed. That is fabricating what they did.

And you really believe that they met a bright light and the bright light talked to them? Evidence, please. That's something that falls under the "extraordinary claim" heading.

You've been willfully obtuse about many things in our conversations. I don't know why you insist on moving so many goal posts, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me to come back to this thread tomorrow and see that you've moved them yet again.

What evidence will work for you? Can I force God to come to you in a bright light, and give you such evidence? Nothing in writing is going to give you any evidence. I am not sure re-creating it in a video is going to provide you with such evidence. I cannot go back in time with a video camera, and give you evidence. Do you demand evidence for everything that has happened in the past, or trust what humans have written about it? I do not think that it was an extraordinary event, but some events only happen once in human history. Why are you obsessing that it could not happen? I guess I am a hypocrite, because I tend to pick and choose my so-called extraordinary events. I am sure the people who accept the events that I don't are also hypocrites, because they also pick and choose which events they accept as well.

What do the North American Indians have to do with astrology and the occult? The brand of astrology I'm familiar with has to do with planets that have Roman names and constellations based on Greek myths. The ancient Romans and Greeks were never in North America (though SF author Robert Silverberg wrote a series of alt-history stories in which the Roman Empire never fell, they kept on fighting the Greeks and Egyptians, and when they finally made it to North America they discovered that the Vikings had beaten them there and were trading with the Aztecs)
.

I have seen paintings of North American Indians and their religious symbols in the Astrology and occult stores in the malls that I frequently visit. From what I have read and seen North American Indians seem to have believed strongly in the spirit world. Every people group that ever existed, except for the most atheistic have had their own brand of religion, but it all seems to have the same component of communication with a messenger between humans and the divine.

I never said that only scientists and historians are allowed to ask questions and test the previous generation's ideas and beliefs. That's how change happens, for better or worse.

I never said it was only a modern human trait.

Can you give an accurate account of yesterday's news from memory? Or would you have to look it up to give an accurate account? It seems obvious to me that writing is a better way of passing knowledge along, and this is one reason why I think it's so important to keep teaching kids how to write without relying on electronics to do it.

You keep missing the point that it was the original story that was made up.

None of this follows. You want me to accept that they sat down and contemplated their current news story. You are equating someone remembering what happened in the news yesterday, that they made up. But not the day after. You want me to believe that everyday they "made up" the news of the day.

The Hebrews wrote down the event of the bright light the same day it happened. For 40 days they were writing down the event. That is what people do when things happen that are newsworthy. If an event happens and humans do not think that it is newsworthy, they do not write about it. They certainly do not come back hundreds of years later and contemplate a non-worthy news event, and make up a story about it as being newsworthy.

Modern scientists are continuing to try to figure this out. Sometimes they'll be wrong, and when that happens they re-evaluate the data and try again..

Or they settle on an idea, until enough evidence (people may be useful in the process) can convince them otherwise. Just because something seems right, it does not make it right. That would be dogma. At least that is what I am being accused of, because they claim I am wrong, and they are right.

It would help if you'd define it.

http://upliftconnect.com/the-shaman-within/

They can be read consistently though. They're only inconsistent if you insist on reading them as "story of how humans were created A" and "story of how humans were created B". Which is most likely what they actually are, but as they're written down all you actually get is firstly a general story of how God created the world, life and humans, and then secondly a story about how he created 2 specific individuals and some plants and animals in one specific location. There's no inherent contradiction between the two (at least not as far as I recall) and nothing to say they couldn't both have happened consecutively (or even partially concurrently). Indeed the very fact that Cain goes on to encounter other humans after he is exiled is perfectly consistent with that reading. In fact I'd probably go as far as saying that if you're trying to interpret it as one coherent whole, that's the only logical way to read it. Which is why it surprises me that Christians don't seem to.

This thread has hit more icebergs on the sea of speculation than the Titanic.

The reason why Christians do not, is because it does not fit into their current form of dogma. That is; we read something into it long ago, and that cannot change, because we have decreed there is nothing new that will change it. With the advent of the scientific method we see that new information can come along. But it is too late, dogma was set. The same can be said for new scientific "eureka" moments. If they become dogma, ie fact. They cannot be changed later. If they can, then those who allow science to change are just as hypocritical as a religion that changes their dogma.

If religions stopped being so dogmatic, they may be more accepted by outsiders.

But, even discussing an opposing view, I have been framed as being dogmatic instead of reasonable.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you seriously need me to explain why it is pointless to speculate about anything before the single time and space 13.7 billion years ago from which everything in the known universe descends? (At least in so much as there can be a 'before' prior to the initial expansion of the universe.)

You didn't say it was pointless, you said it was wild and unfalsifiable. Researchers speculate all the time... Where do you think I got the notion that a big crunch might have preceded the big bang? And if it did, then a prior universe was collapsing inward as the next big bang was triggered - and that means water likely existed before the big bang. If the big crunch can be proven wrong, so can the existence of that water.

 

[tetley]

I don't see how it is MORE pointless than speculating about the big bang in the first place.

 

[Berzerker]

The claim was that light causes water to be liquid. That's sheer nonsense. There's no light inside a freezer. Remove the electricity - aka the source of energy that makes the freezer run properly - and the ice cubes melt. They become liquid. No light was necessary.

Remove the Sun and there's no planet on which to even have this conversation.

Those ice cubes melt because we're near a light (the sun) that warms the planet. Removing the sun means those ice cubes stay frozen, it doesn't mean this planet disappears. It becomes a frozen vagabond just like billions of other planets out there ejected or abandoned by cosmic events.

This is probably going to come as a shock to you, but this is not a theme used by every culture.

I didn't say every culture, I said many. You even quoted me and here you are replacing what I said with an argument you invented as a platform for more insults.

Pretty neat trick, having water before oxygen was created in supernova explosions. And don't insult me by saying space aliens did it, or that it was always there. It wasn't. The early universe didn't have any oxygen, therefore it didn't have any water.

If the big bang was preceded by a big crunch, wouldn't that previous universe contain water?

What part of "God created the heavens and the Earth" is not somebody's notion of how the universe was created?

Heaven and Earth are not the universe, the former divided the water on the 2nd day and the latter is the dry land revealed on the 3rd day. The "heavens" refers to the observable celestial objects and atmospheric phenomena in Earth's sky.

Before the Earth was revealed from under the water there was no Earth's sky. And while those celestial objects existed with or without the Earth, they did not appear in Earth's sky until after the 3rd day when the dry land became exposed. Thats why the sun and moon can exist before the 4th day, they only appeared in Earth's sky at that time because the Earth was not yet dry land from which to see Earth's sky.

That interpretation explains how day and night can exist on the 1st day even though the sun would not appear in Earth's sky until the 4th day. On that 1st day (and 2nd) the sun was shining on the same water covered world in Gen 1:2...

 

[Berzerker]

They can be read consistently though. They're only inconsistent if you insist on reading them as "story of how humans were created A" and "story of how humans were created B". Which is most likely what they actually are, but as they're written down all you actually get is firstly a general story of how God created the world, life and humans, and then secondly a story about how he created 2 specific individuals and some plants and animals in one specific location. There's no inherent contradiction between the two (at least not as far as I recall) and nothing to say they couldn't both have happened consecutively (or even partially concurrently). Indeed the very fact that Cain goes on to encounter other humans after he is exiled is perfectly consistent with that reading. In fact I'd probably go as far as saying that if you're trying to interpret it as one coherent whole, that's the only logical way to read it. Which is why it surprises me that Christians don't seem to.

Yup... Adam was taken from among the 6th day people eastward to the Eden where he performs certain tasks and then Eve is made. What happened to the women created on the 6th day? They preceded Eve and thats where Cain found a wife. Thats how I read the story... And what lies westward from the Eden? The Arabian peninsula and Ethiopia. The latter is our ancestral homeland.

Combined with God's curse upon Eve - increased pain in child birth - and we have 2 clues about the age this happened. About 100-200+kya...

 

[Arakhor]

You didn't say it was pointless, you said it was wild and unfalsifiable. Researchers speculate all the time... Where do you think I got the notion that a big crunch might have preceded the big bang? And if it did, then a prior universe was collapsing inward as the next big bang was triggered - and that means water likely existed before the big bang. If the big crunch can be proven wrong, so can the existence of that water.

If you need to go back to 14 billion years ago to drive to "prove" your point about water pre-dating the Big Bang, why even bother with any of this nonsense in the first place? It's even more pointless than normal.

 

[timtofly]

You didn't say it was pointless, you said it was wild and unfalsifiable. Researchers speculate all the time... Where do you think I got the notion that a big crunch might have preceded the big bang? And if it did, then a prior universe was collapsing inward as the next big bang was triggered - and that means water likely existed before the big bang. If the big crunch can be proven wrong, so can the existence of that water.

The "big Crunch" though may no longer be valid (any more than the "big Bang"). There has been a lot more study on black holes and the mechanism of expansion itself. But I guess they would have to prove there is a black hole forming in the center or wherever that is. It may be impossible to ever figure out where the center is. Theoretically it may be possible to go through a black whole into another universe, like going through a wormhole would be going through time or another area of the universe. That led to the thought that this universe could be the "edge" of a black hole. So far the observable evidence is that a black hole is just the opening to an infinite point that eradicates all matter, like what the universe started out as. Is the current universe a reversed black hole? Instead of speeding toward an infinite point is, it speeding away from that point?

Normally though, water only spills out of a bathtub in proportion to the level of water and the enjoyment of the animal in the tub.

Heaven and Earth are not the universe, the former divided the water on the 2nd day and the latter is the dry land revealed on the 3rd day. The "heavens" refers to the observable celestial objects and atmospheric phenomena in Earth's sky.

Your concept of the use of heavens and earth is not the same concept as the Hebrews. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, heavens and earth together refers to the universe. I think one poster pointed out that both heavens and earth are plural indicating multiple earths and heavens, ie the universe.

Before the Earth was revealed from under the water there was no Earth's sky. And while those celestial objects existed with or without the Earth, they did not appear in Earth's sky until after the 3rd day when the dry land became exposed. Thats why the sun and moon can exist before the 4th day, they only appeared in Earth's sky at that time because the Earth was not yet dry land from which to see Earth's sky.

That interpretation explains how day and night can exist on the 1st day even though the sun would not appear in Earth's sky until the 4th day. On that 1st day (and 2nd) the sun was shining on the same water covered world in Gen 1:2...

Then God said, “Let there be something to divide the water in two.” So God made the air and placed some of the water above the air and some below it. God named the air “sky.” Evening passed, and morning came. This was the second day.

It would seem that you skipped day two. Day two was the separation of waters, and God called that sky. That was a day before land appeared. Why discriminate against water? Water can see the sky just as well as land can.

Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered together so the dry land will appear.” And it happened. God named the dry land “earth” and the water that was gathered together “seas.” God saw that this was good.

 

[Berzerker]

If you need to go back to 14 billion years ago to drive to "prove" your point about water pre-dating the Big Bang, why even bother with any of this nonsense in the first place? It's even more pointless than normal.

Well how far back do we need to go for what happened before the big bang if not ~14 bya?

I didn't bring up water before the big bang, I was responding to this:

it's ridiculous to say that water existed before the universe itself.

That was her response to Tim and they both speculated about what happened, but when I do it you get upset.

I said its possible water preceded the big bang but that was dependent on the existence of a prior big crunch. Seems like an appropriate response to someone claiming water could not have existed back then.