Genesis and The Big Bang

[Stragomagus]

Problem with talking about transition fossils is that people complain that there are no transition fossils in between them and so on. We're not gonna find every fossil of everything that has ever lived, obviously.

 

 

That is true, but they also want things that don't make sense on an evolutionary scale.

 

such as this:(sorry, about that new image location used now)

[hide][/hide]

[warri0r45]

Problem with talking about transition fossils is that people complain that there are no transition fossils in between them and so on. We're not gonna find every fossil of everything that has ever lived, obviously.

 

But we're finding new fossils all the time and expecting there to be completely unbroken chains of changing species is unrealistic. If the argument is that there are no transitional fossils at all, then it's pretty easy to counter.

[Saru Inc]

Well it depends who you ask as to which is considered more valid.

 

Well one specific point I bring up is the timeline of the Earth existience. According to calculations made from the bible, I think it says that the earth is no more than several thousands of years old.

 

And despite this, we have pretty good evidence to suggest that the earth is in fact billions of years old. However this does not suggest that the Big Bang theory is valid, rather that the explaining in Genesis is invalid.

 

 

 

What I heard (and note I may be wrong) is that Carbon-14 Dating isn't all that accurate, new studies show. I forget why though >.<

 

 

My question is.

 

What started the Big Bang? Something had to start something. And I just don't understand my teacher's version:

 

 

"there was nothing. except for gases. then they started exploding ...." Uhhh.

 

 

Tbh, there' no more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for Genesis. It's all the same evidence, it just depends on how you look at it.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

What I heard (and note I may be wrong) is that Carbon-14 Dating isn't all that accurate, new studies show. I forget why though >.<

 

There are many different radiometric dating methods, each with their own useful range of times. I have not heard of anything recently which would call in to doubt the accuracy of Carbon-14 dating, let alone radiometric dating on the whole.

 

 

My question is.

 

What started the Big Bang? Something had to start something. And I just don't understand my teacher's version:

 

 

"there was nothing. except for gases. then they started exploding ...." Uhhh.

 

 

Tbh, there' no more evidence for the Big Bang than there is for Genesis. It's all the same evidence, it just depends on how you look at it.

 

OK, there's multiple problems with this line of thinking..

 

1. 
    
   
2. Substituting "eternal being caused the big bang" for "Genesis."
   
   1. 
      
   2. Based on all of our current evidence we know that an event which we call the big bang occurred.
      
   3. We have no evidence of anything happening prior to the big bang.
      
   4. We have no evidence of the existence of an "eternal being". We in fact have no evidence of the existence anything supernatural.
      
   5. An "eternal being" could have caused the big bang to occur, but because we have no evidence of the supernatural and loads of evidence of the natural it makes much more sense that the big bang had a natural cause.
      

[*]Substituting "your god poofed the universe out of nothing and our evidence of the big bang is bunk" for "Genesis."

1. We have mountains of evidence that an event which we call the big bang occurred. That evidence is not bunk.
   
2. Granting that it could be bunk, you create a false dichotomy. There are lots of other answers other than "the big bang" or "God did it." Why couldn't Thor have done it? Why couldn't Zeus or my mother's hamster?
   

[*]Not substituting "Genesis."

1. We have mountains of scientific evidence which contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis. If we do not interpret Genesis literally in which way do we interpret it? Who decides which interpretation we use? Which parts of it are literal and which aren't? If days aren't days are birds birds?

[Shinjula]

My question is.

 

What started the Big Bang? Something had to start something. And I just don't understand my teacher's version:

Not knowing the cause doesnt stop us knowing it happened.

 

It IS one of the very intriguing questions of the Universe we live in. And it is a good place to put your faith in some god-like being should you choose. However (and I dont assume this is you, but others do this) it is completely unscientific and illogical to assume because we dont know the answer to that question that in some way that invalidates the evidence for the Big Bang.

[billybob323]

I dropped out of this debate a while ago because my posts were ignored by all but one person. But now I have a few points I would like to bring up that can hopefully be used by both sides at least somewhat.

 

First, (I think someone brought this up already, but here it is again because it's important) the scientific method demands that a hypothesis is testable and can be repeatedly tested with the same result, and due to the nature of history, historical events (no matter how far back or recent you are trying to go) are not repeatable. For example (this is only an example so please don't go crazy over this), prove to me, using the scientific method, that Napoleon Bonaparte existed. The scientific method demands that Napoleon Bonaparte be repeatable in order to be proven, yet history is not repeatable and it is impossible to travel back in time. Sure you could dig up what you claim to be his remains, but I could easily just say those are someone else's remains. You could say that there are numerous historical writings about him, but I could say they were all written by superstitious and arrogant fools just trying to come up with a good story. You could say that almost everyone believes he existed because of all the evidence, but I could claim that's because everyone who believed differently was killed by some radical group. The point is, just because you say it happened or say it didn't happen, no matter how much evidence you provide, the scientific method demands it be repeatable and we can not know for sure unless we travel back in time, which is impossible.

 

This leads me to my second point, something I brought up early in the debate but was ignored. It is very possible that in the sciences that make guesses about the past, most conclusions are just a different biased opinion from the same scientific data. For example, light has been observed to behave as both a wave and a particle. There have been many tests to prove this. Scientists concluded that the behavior of light is dependent on the test you set up. If you set up a test to prove light behaves like a wave, it will behave like a wave. Likewise, if you set up a test to prove light behaves like a particle, it will behave like a particle. Either way, light is still light and testing it to be a wave or a particle does not change what it is.

 

Now, about the "where did God come from?" argument, allow me to give an explanation.

 

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1, emphasis added)

 

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. (1 Corinthians 2:7, emphasis added)

 

This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time. (2 Timothy 1:9, emphasis added)

 

a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, (Titus 1:2, emphasis added)

 

There are a couple ways to interpret these. First is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

 

Second is that God exists in more than one dimension of time. Things that exist in one dimension of time are restricted to time's arrow and are confined to cause and effect. However, two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point.

 

Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created. Granted: if you are an atheist, you will not accept this. If you believe the Bible is a bunch of crap, you will not accept this. But you can not say that people who believe in an eternal God are irrational, as this is clearly sound logic. Also, I've noticed quite a few people call creationists close-minded. If you yourself are truly open-minded, you should at least accept the possibility of something being supernatural.

[Zamorakshadow]

Problem with talking about transition fossils is that people complain that there are no transition fossils in between them and so on. We're not gonna find every fossil of everything that has ever lived, obviously.

 

 

That is true, but they also want things that don't make sense on an evolutionary scale.

 

such as this:(sorry, about that new image location used now)

[hide][/hide]

 

I didn't know wheter i should cry or laugh when Kirk Cameron used the "Crocoduck" argument...

What people fail to understand, is that every fossil is a transitional fossil, because every specie is a transitional specie. Homo Erectus was a transition from Australophitecus to Neanderthal. Dogs are a transition from wolves to the specie they will evolve to in the future.

 

 

 

[hide]

There are a couple ways to interpret these. First is that God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. However, the premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created, but, in fact, created the time dimension of our universe specifically for a reason - so that cause and effect would exist for us. However, since God created time, cause and effect would never apply to His existence.

[/hide]

 

Why can't theese arguments apply to the Big Bang? Why couldn't matter have existed outside of dimension time? I'm not saying that "nothing" created "everything", but i don't see why a God is 100% necessary for the existence of matter, as some people claim.

If you believe in theories such as String Theory / M-Theory, there is a "Multiverse", and new "Big Bangs" happen everytime P-Branes hit eachother ( don't ask what they are, i'm still trying to understand M-Theory, and it's something very confuse).

There has to be something that existed forever, whitout a beggining, or existed outside of the dimension "Time". Maybe it is a God, maybe it is a Multiverse formed by the collisions of P-Branes.

 

Scientists don't say "There is no supernatural", and if they do, they aren't 100% sure. It IS possible, but we can't claim it exists whitout evicence.

Lots of scientists believe in Evolution/Big Bang/ etc and believe in a God, but until we find evidence for him, he doesn't exists to science.

[billybob323]

Why can't these arguments apply to the Big Bang? Why couldn't matter have existed outside of dimension time?

Well, for one thing, because scientists/astrologists/cosmologists agree that the "time" dimension (and therefore causality) as we know it today was created by the big bang. Also, that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. There are theories that say a new and different "time" dimension is created with each "big bang/big crunch cycle". I was trying to explain why believing in an eternal God is rational.

 

Scientists don't say "There is no supernatural", and if they do, they aren't 100% sure. It IS possible, but we can't claim it exists whitout evicence.

This, however, is exactly the point I was trying to make- that it is always a possibility. Thank you for catching it.

[Zamorakshadow]

Why can't these arguments apply to the Big Bang? Why couldn't matter have existed outside of dimension time?

Well, for one thing, because scientists/astrologists/cosmologists agree that the "time" dimension (and therefore causality) as we know it today was created by the big bang. Also, that wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. There are theories that say a new and different "time" dimension is created with each "big bang/big crunch cycle". I was trying to explain why believing in an eternal God is rational.

 

I was also just trying to point out that believing in a Big Bang is also rational :P

[Skeptical]

Well it depends who you ask as to which is considered more valid.

 

Well one specific point I bring up is the timeline of the Earth existience. According to calculations made from the bible, I think it says that the earth is no more than several thousands of years old.

 

And despite this, we have pretty good evidence to suggest that the earth is in fact billions of years old. However this does not suggest that the Big Bang theory is valid, rather that the explaining in Genesis is invalid.

 

 

That's always been the real issue I have with Genesis.

 

Oh, yea, and the fact that I don't believe their is a god.

[Zamorakshadow]

Well it depends who you ask as to which is considered more valid.

 

Well one specific point I bring up is the timeline of the Earth existience. According to calculations made from the bible, I think it says that the earth is no more than several thousands of years old.

 

And despite this, we have pretty good evidence to suggest that the earth is in fact billions of years old. However this does not suggest that the Big Bang theory is valid, rather that the explaining in Genesis is invalid.

 

The bible says PI = 3.

The bible says bats are birds.

 

Just search around for bible mistakes and contradictions and you'll find lots of them...

The bible is not the word from a perfect and wise god. Even if Creationism was right, believing Odin, Gaia, Egiptian gods, etc created the world would be more believable than christian creationism, :roll:

[stonewall337]

Stone one of your "arguments" almost had me spitting blood I was so angry. More specifically the one about how the earth is 6,000 years old because there are no fossils that show it was older. Then let me ask you one thing. What about dinosaurs? They have been proven by 20 seperate methods to be far older than 6,000 years old. Furthermore we have geologic proof that soil layers started much much longer ago than 6,000 years. Going off topic I would like to know if I had raised you to worship the great god zeus would you then believe in that myth of creation? Just something for you to think about as you seem to be regurgitating arguments that have been used for quite some time.

 

Just another example of insulting instead of debating.

 

Explain the dino footprint with a human footprint inside it.

 

No, they havn't. Radiocarbon dating is an example of selective reasoning.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

 

 

 

Also, as for the Bible saying pi=3, that is incorrect. You see, you are referencing in the OT where a giant bowl was being constructed for the tabernacle or temple, I forget which. However, the measurement of the bowl is taken from the inside, while the diameter is taken from the inside. The bowl is a "hand breath" thick, which accounts for the difference.

I am a rational human being. In fact, I have studied both sides of the argument. You go to a public school, and have gained their worldview. As for this "proof"

 

As for the Bible calling bats birds, here you go.

 

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

 

Also, don't clump me in with those who are hurting my argument, by spouting off what they hear, and not trying to prove it.

[Zamorakshadow]

[hide]

Stone one of your "arguments" almost had me spitting blood I was so angry. More specifically the one about how the earth is 6,000 years old because there are no fossils that show it was older. Then let me ask you one thing. What about dinosaurs? They have been proven by 20 seperate methods to be far older than 6,000 years old. Furthermore we have geologic proof that soil layers started much much longer ago than 6,000 years. Going off topic I would like to know if I had raised you to worship the great god zeus would you then believe in that myth of creation? Just something for you to think about as you seem to be regurgitating arguments that have been used for quite some time.

 

Just another example of insulting instead of debating.

 

Explain the dino footprint with a human footprint inside it.

 

No, they havn't. Radiocarbon dating is an example of selective reasoning.

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

 

 

 

Also, as for the Bible saying pi=3, that is incorrect. You see, you are referencing in the OT where a giant bowl was being constructed for the tabernacle or temple, I forget which. However, the measurement of the bowl is taken from the inside, while the diameter is taken from the inside. The bowl is a "hand breath" thick, which accounts for the difference.

I am a rational human being. In fact, I have studied both sides of the argument. You go to a public school, and have gained their worldview. As for this "proof"

 

As for the Bible calling bats birds, here you go.

 

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

[/hide]

 

I didn't see any insulting in there. We may sound a little agressive from time to time, but we are not "insulting" you at all.

 

The Paluxy River became famous for controversy in the early 1930s when locals found dinosaur and supposed human footprints in the same rock layer in the Glen Rose Formation, which were widely publicized as evidence against the geological time scale and in favor of young-Earth creationism. However, these anachronistic "human" footprints have been determined to be mistaken interpretation and even some outright fakes[1]. The family of the original man, George Adams, who made the claims, later admitted it was a hoax.[2] "My grandfather was a very good sculptor," said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family who found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks.

 

From wikipedia...

Human footprints in dino footprints? Fake. And if they were real, we would find hundres of other footprints, and human fossils togheter with dinosaur fossils, and we don't even find MAMMAL fossils in the same layer as dinosaurs, nevermind human.

All evidence points for humans arriving waay after the dinosaurs, one ( problably fake) footprint doesn't change a thing.

 

There are over 20 ways of dating, not only radiocarbon. Not to mention how we can see galaxies over 6000 light years away.

 

Studies in the field of Geography, Cosmology, Astronomy and others all point to a 4.6 bilhon years old earth and a 14+ bilhon tears old universe. Telling any (real) scientist that the earth is 6000 years old is like saying the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the universe. The earth is NOT 6000 years old. There is overwhelming evidence for that.

 

I am a rational human being. In fact, I have studied both sides of the argument. You go to a public school, and have gained their worldview. As for this "proof"

 

I study in a catholic school, and i don't have their world view. If you did study the two sides of the argument, i'm sorry, but you didn't study in the right places, i for one still can't believe you actually used one of Kent Hovind's arguments. I have yet to see one of Kent Hovind's arguments that wasn't proven wrong by anyone with basic understanding of science >.<

By the age 13 i knew he didn't know anything about science.

[billybob323]

I was also just trying to point out that believing in a Big Bang is also rational

I hope you're not implying that I said the big bang is not true, because I never said that. I do believe in the big bang. It's "before" the big bang where I differ with most people in this thread.

 

The bible says PI = 3.

Bible Says Pi = 3

Pi in the Bible?

Does the Bible Contain a Mathematically Incorrect Value for "Pi"?

 

The bible says bats are birds.

Does the Bible Call a Bat a Bird?

Is a Bat a Bird?

Isn't the Bible Full of Errors?

[Zamorakshadow]

Not implying you said Big Bang was irrational, just saying that both God AND Big Bang are possible, to the ones who believe either one of them is wrong.

 

Okay, the bat/bird thing and PI = 3 arguments of mine are debunked, i admit that.

But, my point still stands, the bible is not the perfect word of God, it was written by humans, it has changed in the past, and there are other small mistakes in the Bible, not to mention how cruel the old testament is.

 

If the Bible was the word of a perfect God, it would fit perfectly with the Scientific Theories backed up by evidence, it would be a perfect book accepted by all people, and would not have any mistakes at all.

 

Though, i wonder why are all of you sure the Bible and Genesis are right, and all other religions are wrong. How do you know your religion is the right one? How do you know your God is the right one, creationists?

 

The universe could have been created by Odin, Zeus, Horus, Allah, or any other God. Why does it HAVE to be the christian God?

 

 

EDIT: To end this debate with Stonewall about age of the earth and evolution once and for all, i'll post a video that show all evidence we have for a 4.6 bilhon years old Earth and Evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies

 

The first minut makes it sound like it is just Ad Hominem, but the video gets interesting after the first 2 minutes.

And after 5:55 it starts showing evidence to a 4.6 bilhon years old Earth.

 

 

Also, i assume it is just a matter of time before someone uses the "Life can't pop out of anywhere!" card, so i'll post this video about the origin of life( which i highly recommend, even for the evolutionists out there):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

[billybob323]

Though, i wonder why are all of you sure the Bible and Genesis are right, and all other religions are wrong. How do you know your religion is the right one? How do you know your God is the right one, creationists?

 

The universe could have been created by Odin, Zeus, Horus, Allah, or any other God. Why does it HAVE to be the christian God?

Well, if you are truly interested and have an open mind, here are some links you can look through:

Why Christianity?

Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?

to the Rational Skeptic

Why Christianity vs Other Faiths

 

As for the videos, I can't watch them because I have terrible internet connection. But I just wanted to say I seriously doubt it would "end this debate once and for all" because there will always be people who will disagree, or believe whatever they want, or claim there still isn't enough evidence, or claim there were misinterpretations or human error, etc.

[Shinjula]

As for the Bible calling bats birds, here you go.

 

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

 

Also, don't clump me in with those who are hurting my argument, by spouting off what they hear, and not trying to prove it.

The problem comes from people claiming the bible is inerrant in every form because it is the word of god (I dont know whether or not you subscribe to this idea, but others do) and that means that a translation error occured and in the original it was 'things which fly including blah, blah, blah and bats' and became 'birds including blah, blah, blah and bats' which is clearly an error occurring in a supposedly inerrant source. Even if it's a translation error, that's still an error, bats are not birds.

 

You can see why some atheists might have a lot to say about that.

[Shinjula]

Why believe in Christianity over all other religions?

 

 

Ooh those are terrible arguments. Firstly using the existence of a paradox to imply something else is true only works if it is the only other option.

>>>If truth is relative, then the statement that truth is relative is an absolute truth and would be a self-defeating statement by proving that truth is not relative. But, if truth is absolute, then the statement "truth is absolute" is true and not self-defeating. It is true that truth exists.

 

Or it could simply be the case that the only absolute truth is that there is no other absolute truth.

 

Which also works perfectly fine and doesnt contradict itself

 

 

The prophecy stuff completely falls down because of the bible itself. Forgive me if I get any of this wrong but I'm no bible scholar however one thing I do know is that most of the bible prophecies were all supposed to come from one source (leaving aside the arguments about when those prophecies were actually made). There is I believe a specific passage which states that "You can tell a false prophet because a prophet who is from god will never ever get it wrong"

And whilst some of them might be right, every prophet in the bible gets it wrong at least once. Therefore they must be false prophets.

 

 

 

And quite why the rest of the article should imply Christianity is better than any other religion I dont know.

[Zamorakshadow]

I was gonna try to debunk some of the arguments from the "Why christianity" links, but Shin already did it for me.

 

 

Bad connection eh, i know how that is like =\

The videos i posted show LOTS of evidence for Evolution, 4.6 bilhons years old Earth, and how simple unicelular life forms can form in the primitive Earth conditions. Okay, they don't end the discussion because some people refuse to look at the evidence, but a logical person that likes to use reason from time to time would see that Science wins in this case :thumbup:

 

Thoose videos were made by a Youtube user called cdk007, and i recommend his videos to everyone. They basically explain A LOT about Evolution and Biology, anyone with interest in learning should check them out.

[billybob323]

And quite why the rest of the article should imply Christianity is better than any other religion I dont know.

The point of that article is to explain that not all religions can be true because most contradict each other and to show how the Bible does not contradict itself. That is why I posted three other links and not just that one.

 

There is I believe a specific passage which states that "You can tell a false prophet because a prophet who is from god will never ever get it wrong"

And whilst some of them might be right, every prophet in the bible gets it wrong at least once. Therefore they must be false prophets.

Which prophets are you talking about and what exactly did they get wrong?

 

Edit:

Those videos were made by a Youtube user called cdk007, and i recommend his videos to everyone. They basically explain A LOT about Evolution and Biology, anyone with interest in learning should check them out.

Out of curiosity, does he provide any credentials or any reason why we should believe he is experience in the subject?

[Zamorakshadow]

He does show the evidence for what he says, and posts the source of the information in the videos.

 

Plus, he is an ACTUAL scientist ( PHD in molecular neuroscience) :thumbup:

 

Plus, he is freakin' awesome :P

 

Plus, i am actually watching his videos and then searching for information to proove what he says ( boredom...), and i gotta say, he knows what he's talking about.

[stonewall337]

I believe the key here is your axiom, how you look at the evidence. Both sides have arguments, and counter-arguments, and so on and so forth. I am not a scientist, but I can defend what I know to the best of my ability. (Also, God would have created the starlight having already reached the earth, otherwise there would have been no sunlight or heat from the sun for ~8.5 minutes after creation.) However, it really does come down to interpretation. You see, no one here is going to change my mind, because of the simple matter, this is the INTERNET. I will continue to try to prove my point, but I really don't think we are getting anything done here....

 

So, you can say whatever you like about the Bible. In fact, I have some of the same arguments I use to rebut people who say the KJV is the only true translation.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

 

This is a rather interesting article.

[Shinjula]

There is I believe a specific passage which states that "You can tell a false prophet because a prophet who is from god will never ever get it wrong"

And whilst some of them might be right, every prophet in the bible gets it wrong at least once. Therefore they must be false prophets.

Which prophets are you talking about and what exactly did they get wrong?

Probably my favourite one is Isaiah 17:1

"Behold, Damascus will cease from being a city,

And it will be a ruinous heap. "

 

Damascus of course being unusual in an ancient city as having not been destroyed and survived complete to this very day.

 

 

EDIT Btw, sorry I havent gone into the other links but otherwise we end up with a very disparate conversation with a million quotings. I would like to talk about some of the things in them too, but maybe a little later.

 

But I do think the logical arguments against the other religions are very poor and fall down quickly mostly because the writers are assuming (again) that only two possibilities are possible, showing one is false and therefore assuming the other must be true (as in my example on the previous page) when in fact there are more than two possibilities. So I thought that Bible Prophecy woud be the strongest case for Christianity, if only it were true, and thus taking out that lynchpin would be the best argument against it.

[Zamorakshadow]

Stone, since i originally intended for you to see this, and i'm not sure if you have, i'll repost the video:

[hide]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies&feature=player_embedded[/hide]

 

The first minut sounds like Ad Hominen, but after the first minut the video gets interesting, and after 5:50 it starts showing the evidence to how we know the Earth is 4.6 bilhon years old.

 

If you are an actual rational person who sees the both sides of the argument as you claim to be, i hope you at least think about it and if you still think the video is wrong i hope you check all that evidence yourself.

 

But, saying "No one will change my mind" only makes me see you as a close-minded creationist, and arguing with you is pointless.

I sincerely hope you aren't like that.

 

You may believe in God ( most of the evolutionist scientists do), but at least look at the evidence for Evolution & Others, and think about it, isn't it possible that God created the world via Big Bang, and that the Bible is metaphorical?

 

 

 

Also, by doing that with light, God would plant evidence against what he says, if he truly loved us and wanted us to believe him, wouldn't he put evidence FOR him instead? I don't see how an all-loving merciful God could me deceitful.

 

 

 

EDIT: I don't see how that Isaiah passage even is a prophecie, i agree that some prophets have made mistakes and lots of prophecies of the Bible seemed to went wrong, but saying that Damascus will end some day and call that a prophecie is like saying " Someone somewhere in the world is going to die tomorrow. Z0mg i can see the future!".

Someday, Damascus will end up destroyed (especially since the Sun will eventually blow up...), that is just logic, not prophecie.

[Shinjula]

No, because its in the middle of a whole bunch of stuff hes prophesying (It is the seventeenth chapter theres sixteen more before it and quite a few after it too).

The Bible gateway I have as a link gives Isaiah a sub heading of

"The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

I havent read it all (I knew it from other people telling me about it), but from my skimming it looks like at the very least its all got to happen before the messiah arrives. Perhaps a Christian can elaborate a little on the context of the Prophecies of Isaiah.