Does the Bible's creation account rule out the possibility that the universe began with the big bang

What is your order then of all of the events? I am interested in whether you think land plants came before sea animals in the biblical narrative.

I don't see any possible ordering of these events that doesn't directly contradict either the Biblical narrative or scientific facts.

Can you propose one?

This should be fun. . .

1) No one here has proposed an order of creation that doesn't contradict science (I am still waiting for your opinion on what order you think the events I outlined took place).

2) The scientific, geological, and genetic (DNA) evidence conclusively contradict the idea of a world wide flood.

3) Scientific, geological and genetic evidence conclusively contradict the story of Moses' flight from Egypt.

4) The Battle of Jericho never happened and wouldn't have made any sense (given that the people who would have been fighting on either side would have been the same people).

5) Snakes don't talk. People can't live inside the bellies of fish. The genetics of cows aren't changed by making marks in sticks. And ghosts don't come back to have conversations with living people.

Need I go on?

I'll get back to this again when I'm done with today's honeydo's.
But.

Have you noticed that the creative days did not begin until the earth was described as "formless and void", after the creation of heavens and earth? Do you think, perhaps the sun and moon might not be visible from the earth under prevailing atmospheric conditions?

And, while we're at it, how much of this information was really necessary in full detail to those in an ancient agrarian society?

Oh, and do you actually think it was a snake that spoke to Eve?

Geologically, there is NOWHERE on the planet in which clear sedimentalogical evidence shows anything close to a "worldwide flood"

Local transgressions of seas and rivers were simply local events that began some "folk tales"(like the storm of 1972).
Each of these events is clearly recorded in the sedimentary record of that area. These stories surrounding the dirt evidence are often interesting and can give some sense regarding ages of inundation wrt human habitation in that area.
We know of 1 local Leni Lenape story of a flood during their nations paleo History (8500 to 13000 yrs Bp) along the US eastern coast. Sedimentological record shows a major inundation that corresponded to "Ice out" of the final glacial pulse and the carving of the Delaware/Chesapeake basins that we see today. (prior to that, the Chesapeake and Delaware systems were like the Missouri Mississippi Rivers, joined at the delta.

AT ALL times where we have inundation evidence in an inhabited area, the limited flood basin extent corresponds to what the indigenous populations called the "known world". The extents of flooding or "water worlds" could extend for as little as a few hundred square miles , to areas over 10000 square miles (max).

Now, come up with a tale about an entire world covered in ICE, and weve got something that happened (twice). Trouble was, ach time these "Cryogenian Ages" showed up, there were no people. In fact, there werent even any animals with backbones.

TheUS bible literalists have, since the late 1800's been talking smack about how "science was coming to their way of thinking"> That is utter crap, and only spoken by "Liars for Jesus".

You are making up this idea that the "sun and moon might not be visible" to explain the fact that the Bible claims the stars weren't "set in the sky" until the forth days.

But no, it is not possible for several reasons.

1) Sea animals, were swimming in the ocean long before plants started growing on land. This is another contradiction in the Biblical narrative that you still haven't responded to.

2) There was a period of several hundred million years between the development of multi-cellular sea life and land vegetation. During this time we understand the atmospheric composition pretty well (as we can study the chemistry of the time through fossil and geologic evidence).

There was no reason to believe that there was a layer to block out the sun (other than the desire to cover up contradictions in the Biblical account).

3) The Sun is required to develop land vegetation. If you block out the sun, the plants are going to have a rather difficult time growing, don't you think?

Do you agree that in the Biblical account land vegetation occurred before sea creatures?

Simply put, no sun, no life.

Its wonderful not having to "make up" such crap as time sequences that "make believe" a day is a week or a millenium.
In the earth history sciences qe deal with seconds, hours, time sequences based upon radionuclide decay at roughly (X disintegrations per second), and magnetic reversal based time called "chron sequences" .( chron is a sequence of time between two magnetic reversal events).
On top of that we have a whole lot of qualitative time segments defined by some biological /geological event(s), and to these we have always attempted to ascribe fixed quantitative time units.

The work that goes into these determinations is unending, relentless, and must correspond to an international review process (Its that important).


.

The view of the discussion from 30,000 light years above:

Do you realize how absurd it is to argue such points as 24 hour days, the precise order of events, etc., when your foe is a being which presumably can create matter and energy at will and has complete control over the dimension of time?

No matter whether you think you are arguing against A God or a Myth, your position is as hopeless as that of Don Quixote.

Im just say'n...

The argument is whether the Biblical understanding of creation "rules out" the scientific understand (specifically of the Big Bang) based on evidence and observed facts.

The answer is no.

I can not disprove a claim that there is a God who can screw around with scientific facts and observations. If God, who "can create energy at will and has complete control", has decided to **** with us, than science is useless.

I can say with certainly that barring such a capricious deity, scientific facts and objective observations clearly contradict what is written in the Bible in all the ways we have been discussing here and more.

Closer to two billenia, actually. You are beeing too kind by a factor of two million.

"is that a word or did you just compose it? I salute your lexicalogical skillery

I'm just waiting for the next miracle.

Are you referring to the word "billenia"? No, that wasn't a word until I made it up today. And, thanks for the compliment!

Good word; most understands what it means.

Not at all. Science has already recognized that the laws of physics break down at the point of the Big Bang singularity and even for awhile after (inflation). This by no means eliminates the utility of science.

I don't even have to invoke the existence of a God to show how silly you are being.

Here you are both (along with others) denying the existence of literary metaphor.

Actually , we're merely denying the "opportunity" for literary metaphor to think of itself as science.

You could also say that science is useless at interpreting metaphor. Which many here are trying to do.

awww, shirley you jest