The story of creation, according to genesis

In an effort to better examine why the claims of creationists don’t hold up to even the most basic scrutiny, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the two illogical and conflicting creation stories from the first two chapters of Genesis. This is actually something I have wanted to do for at least the last two years. Virtually every point I will make here are points that I have made many times in conversations with christians (family, coworkers, friends, neighbors, etc), but until now I had never compiled them all into one place.

If you’re like most people you know the basics of the story, 7 days, adam and eve, yadda yadda yadda; but you probably do not know that the bible tells the story of the creation of life twice, and in a different order each of those times. You likely have not really ever examined the words carefully to notice that as written, it is actually a logical impossibility. Hopefully somewhere in the next few hundred words, you’ll have a better understand of exactly what these first two chapters of “the best selling book in history” actually say.

Before I begin, for those who are interested in the best scientific understanding of the creation of the universe, the solar system, life, and mankind I would like to point you to a series of videos from Potholer54, “… Made Easy”. There you will get a quick glimpse of the current understanding of the evolution of the universe, our world, and life.

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

I hate to skip ahead, but this has perplexed me, and many others, for many years. As we see, on the first day light, the earth, water on the earth, and the “heavens” are created. But if we look ahead to day four, “god made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars”. So if the stars, the sun, and the moon are not created here, what EXACTLY constitutes “the heavens”? And what is the source of “the light”, and can we still see this light today?

As most people realize, what we consider a day is how long the earth takes to rotate on it’s axis one time. And what we consider “day time” would be while the portion of the earth we are on is facing the sun, while “night” would be while the portion of the earth we are on faces away from the sun. So if the sun has not yet been created, it begs the questions, what was the definition of “day”, “night”, “evening”, and “morning” at this point in the creation? How can any of these concepts exist without the sun to give them meaning?

So what we have at the end of “day 1” is the earth covered in water. We also have light coming from some source other than the sun or other stars. And we have measurements of time that correspond to things which are not actually in existence.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Most people understand this to mean the creation of the atmosphere. And read as such it makes sense. Except for the pesky fact that without a source of heat, such as the sun, and with no air pressure, such as the lack of an atmosphere, water can not remain in a liquid state. Water in such an environment would rapidly boil, turning to gas, then instantly freeze turning to ice crystals. This would have already happened on the first day when this water was created. So at this point to speak of “water” would be illogical.

Now at the end of “day 2” we have an atmosphere to separate ice crystals in the sky from ice on the surface of the earth.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

On day three we see that land has been created, and plant life has arisen on this land. This despite the fact that plant life as it exists on earth requires energy, which comes from the sun. And even the most basic reading of the text will show that the sun is not created until the next day. Again we are seeing another logical impossibility in the story of creation, actually managing to have exactly one per day. We’re batting 1.000 so far, can we keep it up.

And to end “day 3” we have land and plant life.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

I briefly touched on day four earlier, but there is still more to talk about from this section. As mentioned earlier, what we call a “day” is how long the earth takes to rotate on it’s axis one time. However this passage claims that the stars (and presumably the sun) “mark seasons and days and years”. To put it this way implies that the seasons, days, and years are independent of the stars, including the sun; when in reality the seasons and years are 100% dependent upon the sun, in that they are measurement of the earth’s place in location to the sun.

We also finally get to the point where much of what has previously happened becomes possible. The idea of life, liquid water, and light are now finally feasible due to the sun’s place in the universe.

That is not to say this passage is without it’s own problems. Far from it in fact. It seems as if the moon is said to be it’s own source of light, as was commonly understood in ancient times. However as we know the moon actually reflects light from the sun and does not generate it’s own light. Perhaps some would call this a minor quibble, but it shows a clear pattern with this story. Mainly that this is exactly that, a story created at a time when our understanding of the world and the universe was mostly guess work, and now understood to have been wrong.

So at the end of “day 4” we now have the sun, the moon, and the stars.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

On day five we see the creation of all seafood, I mean sea life, and birds. Of course I have to point out the flaw here, and for the first time I am not going to refer to just straight logic, but this time I am going to bring in science. But first, a quick overview of the creation of life so far according to the bible. Plant life on the land (1) THEN sea life (2) and birds (3) THEN (as we’ll see on the next day) land animals(4) and mankind (5).

Now the basic time-line of life on earth, with (very approximate) dates, looks something like:

3.8 billion years ago: simple cells (prokaryotes)
3 billion years ago: photosynthesis
2 billion years ago: complex cells (eukaryotes)
1 billion years ago: multicellular life
600 million years ago: simple animals
570 million years ago: arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans)
550 million years ago: complex animals
500 million years ago: fish and proto-amphibians
475 million years ago: land plants
400 million years ago: insects and seeds
360 million years ago: amphibians
300 million years ago: reptiles
200 million years ago: mammals
150 million years ago: birds
130 million years ago: flowers
65 million years ago: the non-avian dinosaurs died out
2.5 million years ago: the appearance of the genus Homo
200,000 years ago: humans started looking like they do today
25,000 years ago: Neanderthals died out

As we can see here the order (just looking at those 5 things listed above) would be more accurately: Sea life (2) THEN plant life on the land (1) THEN land animals (4) THEN birds (3) THEN mankind (5). It doesn’t take an expert to realize the problems with this story. Even those who want to accept evolution, and say that the story of genesis is an allegory (such as the catholic church) meant to be taken as not referencing seven literal days can not get around the order being wrong.

But according to the story, at the end of “day 5”, we have sea life and birds.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Quick question, when did worms and other creatures that live IN the ground get created? The story has mentioned sea life, birds and “creatures that move along the ground”, but never mentioned those which live IN the ground.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

Pay close attention to this order here; it will be important as we reach the second chapter of genesis. first land animals were created and THEN mankind.

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

It’s also important to pay attention to this particular sequence of events. Man and woman are both created together, then god talks to these people.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

And at the end of “day 6” we have land animals and mankind. And with that it seems as if everything has been created.

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Adam and Eve

Here we begin the second telling of the “same” story. Although as we will quickly see the details have changed, calling into question the idea that the source can be anything other than bronze age men trying to understand the world around them.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [d] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-

This seems to be a tad confusing. Is this saying the earth was covered in nothing but water (as the “day 1” of the earlier account claimed) or is this saying that there is land and the rivers of the world came in to being? It might seem like a minor point, but the next sentence will make it very important.

7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Now for man to be created from the “dust of the ground” must mean that our previous question has been answered: land existed and THEN water came in to being. This is of course the first contradiction, of many, with the earlier account. In this instance we see land, then water, then man, while in the previous incarnation of the story it was an earth covered in nothing but water, then land two “days” later, then much more and finally man as the last thing created three “days” after land.

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

Another sentence, another contradiction. Earlier we saw that on the third “day” that plant life, including trees and fruit bearing plants were created, and then the final thing created was man, on the sixth “day”. Here it is clear that the plant life, and specifically the trees and fruit bearing plants was created after mankind, as a place for man to live.

In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [f] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [g] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

There is a WHOLE other issue for another post here; but for now I will say that while this is not a contradiction or logical impossibility, it does show what the writers of the old testament considered to be “bad”, knowledge.

18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Wait a minute, do I see another contradiction? No, actually I see two. The first, and most obvious, is that in this version of events, mankind was created first, and THEN animals were created, to keep man company. But in the earlier account from the first chapter of genesis we saw animals were created first and THEN mankind.

The second contradiction is a bit more subtle, but no less important, if one believes this book is somehow special. In the earlier account we saw that animals were create, then men and women (together), and THEN finally god spoke to those first humans (genesis 1: 27-28); while here we see man created, then animals, then god speaks to man before the first woman has come into existence.

But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Finally we have the first woman, and with her comes another contradiction. As already pointed out, in the earlier account man and woman were created together, and yet here there is a time lapse between the two.

You’d think that whoever compiled these two stories into one book would have taken the time to read them both to avoid such obvious and glaring contradictions between them. They were in serious need of a good proof reader, and apparently just did not have the budget for one or something…

23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, [k]
for she was taken out of man.”

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Phew, I think we made it through finally. It actually seems to have taken me more words to point out the flaws in the story, then there are in the story itself. Either I’m just not very concise or this story has more holes to fill than than a porn convention.

So what is our finally tally? (Some of the “problems” actually fit under more than one category below, but for the sake of this tally I am only counting each “flaw” in the story under one category)

Logical Impossibilities: 3
Contradictions: 6
Flawed Science: 2
Other Miscellaneous Problems: 1

Two chapters in and we have 12 major problems, not counting the issues around the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which I have covered in another post.

After I finished writing this post I happened to stumble across a series of videos from The Bible Skeptic on the same topic. These videos seem quite well done, so I thought I’d share them here for you. While many of the points presented here overlap a number of my own points, these videos take more of scientific approach, comparing genesis to our own understanding of science, and focus less on it’s own internal contradictions with itself and the logical impossibilities within the story.

What Genesis Got Wrong: Part 1

Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10
(This series leaves off during day 5 of the “creation”, so I assume there will be more videos in the future)

What Genesis Got Wrong

About Rodibidably

Jeff Randall is a frequent volunteer for free-thought organizations, including the Center For Inquiry – DC. Having been blogging since January 2008, he decided that a community of bloggers would be an interesting new experience (or at the very least a fun way to annoy his friends into reading his posts more frequently). Since finding out about about the existence of, and then joining, the atheist/skeptic community in 2007 he has been committed to community activism, critical thinking in all aspects of life, science, reason, and a fostering a secular society.
This entry was posted in Religion, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to The story of creation, according to genesis

  1. Pingback: The Believer’s Brain – “LetsTalkChrist” | Thinking Critically

  2. bdrex says:

    I find genesis to be a really thought inspiring tale of the big bang and evolution.

    If we were to explain those concepts to ancients and have them put it in their own words it may come out looking like genesis. People think they are smart enough to take a story literally and fix the contradictions. But really they are dumb enough to take symbolic stories and see them as literal.

    The Jewish mystics explain genesis. Light was the big bang, earth literally means dirt, but to them we are talking about elements, (earth, water, fire) so we have light and we have matter, then the earth is formed. . . .

    Of course not everything can be so easily explained but this was a person’s writings not Gods. Still it seems einstein was back there theorizing for this story.

  3. Jeff Randall says:

    Personally I view genesis (and much of the bible) as a pre-scientific attempt to understand the world.

    As I mentioned in the post, to equate the story to the big bang or evolution either abuses the story to the point that not one single word has any meaning, or gets the science completely wrong.

    For instance the story has the earth created and populated with plant life before the sun, moon, and stars come into existence. And it has birds living before land animals.
    This is not an issue of textual interpretation, or it being an allegory, these are just flat out wrong.

    I agree that to take the story literally today, which mankind’s understanding of science, would at best be a case of willful ignorance. But it also seems that to take the stories as an allegory abuses the science, while perhaps not quite as much still well past the point of reasonableness.

    I think if the story is taken as an early attempt to understand the world, it makes tremendous sense. If it is taken as “true”, it strains any conceivable logic.

  4. bdrex says:

    I think I wasn’t clear. I agree, this is their attempt to understand the world. I was saying; I think, without modern science and technology, they did pretty good. The Zohar genesis gives a better description. (I think this was where I read the mystical genesis.)

    You might also consider bible scholars see 2 threads tied together in genesis. Thus the repeated verses and oddities. bdrex

    • Jeff Randall says:

      They did the best they could, given their limitations. It was a decent (and in many ways reasonable) attempt to understand what was at that time unknowable.

      But those who today try to take it at literal truth, or allegorical truth, are just plain wrong. The story does not accurately describe the creation of the universe or the evolution of life.

      That said, you are very correct to point out that the first two chapters are clearly two separate stories that over time were brought together. And this post is not really directed to those who understand that. This post is directed at those who attempt to view the bible as the infallible word of god (whether they claim it to be literal or allegorical),

    • Lizzie White says:

      Their attempt? Does this mean that the theory of evolution is an attempt also?

  5. writerdood says:

    I remember when I was a kid, explaining to my youth pastor that I saw nothing wrong with evolution. I told him it all made sense from the perspective of Genesis, the time line is just wrong. Evolution is the tool of God. Look around at the universe and consider the billions of years it took to form. You don’t really think all of it was made in seven days do you? Obviously Genesis is metaphorical.

    That didn’t go over so well. Genesis, in general, became a major sticking point for me as I was now obviously a heretic rather than a fundamentalist. Well, shit! What was I supposed to do, just ignore all the scientific evidence? And I’d been studying evolution for just as long as I’d been going to church (I was really into dinosaurs as a kid). Was I just supposed to ignore the obvious and go with the explanation that Satan stuck all this stuff here and MADE it look like it had been around for billions of years just to fool everyone? I mean… WTF? I thought God created the universe, not Satan, so why’s it now supposed to be the other way around?

    Bottom line: reconciling reality with religion doesn’t lead you back to religion, it leads you back to reality. And the two shall never merge.

    • Jeff Randall says:

      I think the genesis story of creation was a valiant attempt to understand the world and to weave a tale that explained the unexplainable.
      But those who try to argue that is describes the big bang or evolution are flat out wrong. At a glance you could possibly stretch the story to the point that it coincides with our current understanding, but a closer look shows the flaws of even seeing it as a allegory that describes “truth”.

      • writerdood says:

        I agree, and to be fair, Genesis is better than some of the other creation mythos. Some of them are pretty far out. That’s probably why its managed to stick around and proliferate. If you’re a primitive non-scientific culture attempting to create a creation myth that will stand the test of time, being vague and metaphorical is probably your best bet.

      • Jeff Randall says:

        If taken literally, I’m not sure it’s any “better” than any of the other creation myths. It’s certainly not more accurate.

        If taken as allegory and compared to other creation stories, then to be fair you’d also have to give those stories the benefit of being taken as allegory as well. In which case it’s a matter of how much you are able to stretch a story to make it fit what we currently understand about the universe.
        There are creation stories that the world was created as the result of a battle between two opposing forces. Could this mean matter and antimatter after the big bang? Why not?

        I think once you do this, you’re left with every story being able to be read as whatever you want, and they are all equally right and equally wrong.

    • Patrick Spier says:

      What about the hundreds of thousands of diseases that comes from our bodies via genetic mutations, the fact we get cancer is due to a flaw in its design.

  6. bdrex says:

    I realize you look at contradictions in genesis, pointing out the uninspired nature. I will suggest something that has been rejected in the past but makes complete sense. I learned that the Jews base their calender on the lunar cycle, 13 cycles, each year. Cresent moon to be specific.

    I wondered what the old ages of genesis would look like if divided by moon cycles. Noah would be 70 solar years old at death. Archeaeology has found several time inconsistencies, about 700 years, ramses as pharoh, city of dan. ai.

    The dates would match better if this was in fact true, but this idea has been rejected because of the obvious errors that would have to be acknowledged.

    • Jeff Randall says:

      I think as a way to look into history at what people believed and how they lived, the bible is one of the most important documents we have.

      It has some beautiful passages in psalms that even today are among some of the best poetry mankind has produced.
      It has some very good moral tales that teach ethics including altruism, sacrifice, and honesty.
      It gives us an amazing glimpse into the past to see how the world was understood at a time and place where not many other records have survived.

      The specific details in many cases seem to be clearly fictional, but even from fiction we can learn how the writers viewed the world. Shakespeare is no less valuable because Romeo and Juliet were only in his imagination.

      The problem with the bible comes from those who want to claim divine inspiration and “Truth”. Because for all of the fantastic parts of the bible, there are equally horrific parts to it as well.

      If looked at the same way we view Homer, Plato, Chaucer, etc there would be no problems. The negatives associated with the bible come not from the words, but from the insistence of it coming from a divine source.

      For those who view this book as being written by men, as being a collection of some fiction and some non-fiction, the specific details like Noah’s age are irrelevant. We can look at the text and say “for a guy living at that time he was quite old”. It doesn’t matter if he was 50 or 70 or 90, all that matters is that the story is trying to get across the idea that for his time that he was old.

  7. christislord says:

    I think you’re an idiot. God can do anything. He can create to world in six days and cause the atmosphere to be formed from water without heat. God was the light and he still is. The only reason there is laws of physics is because God created them. Evolution was created and believed by people because they think that because of this they don’t have to make an account before God on the last day, wrong, just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t mean he isn’t real. I feel sorry for you, but it isn’t too late for you to stop believing this rubbish and turn to God.

    • Bronze tiger says:

      He also gave man reason, and allowed us to not accept tales from years past that go against the very reason that he gave to us

    • the seer says:

      @christislord – has it ever occurred to you that if you were born in Indonesia or Saudi Arabia, the name you would be using here would likely be “allahislord”? Mull on that simple fact.

  8. TROLLER says:

    why the yadda’s?

  9. Pingback: Christians’ Favourite Delusions 27: The Bible Is The Ultimate Authority On All Things | rejectingjesus

  10. As the webmasters and marketers restored their previous reputation (obviously good one), they were hit by another update.
    Going returning to the item of furniture shop in Gloucester example, you can furniture-for-sale-in-Gloucester and
    furniture-for-sale-in-Cheltenham pages, that will then benefit the area mission to find your products.
    This is really a feature that being a company owner you
    have to be definitely be taking advantage of.

  11. It might seem at the 1st look that they should be not that comfy,
    but it is not accurate. You can give it a try for free, in-browser, right
    here. Here I can only give you these tips to help you Reduce
    Minecraft Lags.

  12. De Soto says:

    God has to see if something is good or bad tells me everything about this story. If he doesn’t know beforehand then this should tell you that this is not super being…it is a man in a god suit and isn’t it men that create all the religions and dogmas according to their own flawed standards. Our image is a really strange thing also hinting a club or group of people gods. It seems to me that man and god created each other simultaneously to try to give meaning to an ignorant and new world. The story has many flaws and concepts than men of knowledge will have a problem with on many levels. Beware of what you think you know!

  13. Who was there in the begining of creation

    • Lizzie White says:

      God. Have you not read genesis? Or are you asking who was before creation? My answer would be the same. He is the Alpha and Omega. The beginning and end. Time did not exist until God created it.

  14. George Davies says:

    I found most of what you said to be incorrect. I understand where you’re coming from, though, as an evolutionist. But since you don’t fully understand what it’s saying (the bible, genesis, etc) you’ve come up with your own explaination of why it couldn’t have happened. I’m sure you’ve had
    many people argue you on these points, but the best way to debate (and the true point of debates) is to get a better understanding of the subject whether it be negative or positive. The first thing you are doing wrong with these points, is looking at the two stories as the same story just with contradictions. Meaning, it has the same plot and same details, just here and there are mess ups. This isn’t the case. One story is like an overview, the big picture, whereas the other zooms in giving details on the days. I obviously don’t have all the answers, but I know for sure they’re out there (meaning in the context of the bible).
    I’d also like to point out that evolution is a theory, not fact. Of course this is a low blow, but it’s the truth. If you have questions or comments I’d love to hear them.
    And my question is for you, what’s the difference between today’s ocean and the ocean created thousands of years ago? Why does it not boil and turn to gas now? Is it possibly the water cycle? What is the exact science explanation?

    • the seer says:

      You said – “I’d also like to point out that evolution is a theory, not fact”

      This single statement renders your whole comment asinine, to say the least. You clearly have no understanding of what you are saying.

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of a phenomenon backed up by a framework of observations and facts and is required to be testable and can be confirmed through experiments to predict future observations.

  15. Awesome issues here. I’m very happy to peer your article.
    Thanks a lot and I am looking ahead to contact you. Will you kindly drop me a

  16. Erin says:

    Today, I went to the beachfront with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter annd said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.”
    She placedd the shell to her eear and screamed. There wwas a
    hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. Shhe never wwants
    to go back! LoL I know thiks is entirely off topic butt I had
    to tell someone!

  17. Cecila says:

    Thank you, I hsve just been looking for information approximately this
    topic for a longg time and yours is tthe greatest I’ve discovered till now.
    But, what about the conclusion? Are you certain in regards
    to the supply?

  18. What we do know is that our written history or something near it seems to land around the time of a man named Adam, if there was one. It does not reduce a mesopotamian story. Now, let’s say if there was a god and he made all those things in billions of years, is it possible that this same god created a man named adam in relationship to time (billions of years) to live in the last second of the creation story. The whole existence that we understand in our limited scientific knowledge within the framework of the history that we have worked with is less than a second of the whole creation story.

    If we understand time within the framework of seasons and moving objects, the time could have begun on the 4th day. There are several to many Rabbis who believe this to be possibly true. anything prior to the fourth day cannot be actually known. The question lies in the lining up of the universe or the reality of light.

    Whether God is in the picture or not, we can conclude that without the movement of all the celestial elements especially the sun and the moon in our system. We would be dead. Death was introduced as a possibility on the 4th day.

    Why is this death not a sin and sin is introduced through the actions of one man?
    The answer lies in the passion week, a 8th day and a prophecy in jeremiah 33. To make this all true, a man named Jesus must of lived, but it seems no one has a problem with him dying.

  19. Kassandra says:

    Thankfulness to my father who informsd me concerning this blog, this blog is actually

  20. Ben says:

    Right here is the perfect website for anyone wwho hopes to find
    out about this topic. You know so much its almost tougvh to adgue with you (not that I personally
    would want to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a topic which has been discussed for decades.
    Wonderful stuff, just wonderful!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s