[_ Old Earth _] Time does not exist, and this impacts evolution

[Edward]

I dont see why the Bible isn't a science book.There's a lot of scientific knowledge in it.

That it doesn't lend itself to many equations, or terminology that you'd like to see in there...and does it in a way that forbades experimentation, is...well, too bad. The author of the book did that (geniusly!) for a couple reasons. He doesn't want to be proven, He wants for us to have faith in Him and put our trust in Him. To get to know Him..as we do, He reveals truths to us.

It starts right out talking about time, space, and matter (Gen 1:1). Sometimes it can be hard to understand literature, especially when the author is talking above you, lol. That said, to try to make unequivocal statements about it is impossible.

 

[Jim Parker]

You have written a lot of criticism about Science and the Bible science concepts found in the Holy Word.

I have written exactly NOTHING criticizing either the Bible or science.
Please don't put words in my mouth and then proceed to refute what I did not say.

My criticism has been exclusively of the farcical attempt to use the Bible as a science book.
There are no "Bible science concepts" in the "Holy Word." That notion is an invention which distorts God's self revelation in the scriptures.
It is nonsense.
It may be heresy since it is a non-Biblical opinion which distorts the meaning of scripture and distracts believers from their callings.

So please Define Science in your own words, without using the word "to know", or the word "why", or the word " seeking knowledge" as these are Hebrew words all stemmed from our Science definition,

(1) Science is already thoroughly defined. You can find the definition in any dictionary of the English language.
(2) There is no Hebrew word "to know" or "why" or "seeking knowledge". Each of those are modern English words. Modern English was still about 3000 years in the future when the Hebrew of the Bible was written. You have made them identical. That's like saying a teaspoon is a backhoe. It's nonsense. If someone is preaching that to you then they have assumed that you are ignorant and can be easily misled by what appears to be a reasonable presentation augmented by charts and diagrams.

I suppose you think you are being very gracious by sharing your accumulated knowledge which is completely based on your total misunderstanding of both science and language. Unfortunately, all you are doing is babbling utter nonsense.

If this is an example of the "wisdom" you are gaining from reading "creation science" books and viewing their videos and reading their magazines then I fear you may be what is called by hustlers, a "mark." That's someone gullible enough to spend his/her good, hard-earned, money on utterly worthless trash. You have spent your time, effort and money on what is essentially as good an investment as ocean front property in North Dakota.

The Bible is NOT a science book.
To treat the Bible as a science book is to do violence to the scripture.
The Bible itself tells you its purpose: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (2Ti 3:16RSV)
It's not for supporting crackpot ideas about creationism being science.

iakov the fool

 

[Barbarian]

What about the German "zum". Tell me what that means!

Contraction of "zu dem."

The idea of "to" as in going to, speaking to, etc.

Or so, my limited understanding of scientific German goes. (as a chemistry undergrad at Iowa State, I had to take "Reading Scientific German."

 

[GodsGrace]

Contraction of "zu dem."

The idea of "to" as in going to, speaking to, etc.

Or so, my limited understanding of scientific German goes. (as a chemistry undergrad at Iowa State, I had to take "Reading Scientific German."

You showed above exactly what I meant in saying that some words cannot be translated.

You have to tell me The idea
since there is no translation possible.
And many times The idea does not create a proper image of what the word means. Or, at least, not a complete one.

For instance, even in your explanation of the word "to" you write "as in going or speaking of" etc.
An exclamation mark would be necessary after the "to" or any other way Zum would be explained.
There's a tiny word in Italian that comes to mind. Dai. It has several meanings depending on how you say it, and none of them could be translated with one word. How about "mira" in Spanish. Does it really just mean "look"? No.

I've always found this interesting and has helped me to understand the limitations of words - even in the bible.

W

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim Parker,

There are no "Bible science concepts" in the "Holy Word."

Are you kidding ? You must be a scientist to write so biased ? Or a science teacher perhaps? Let me show you some science concepts in the Bible...

Gen 1:5 And the evening and the morning was day one.

This is written correctly and rarely translated correctly in English, translators assume the day of creation was a first day. But no. the Bible says "yom echad" day one...the word first, and Hebrew has a word for first, is not used here because the day one, has no other day to compare it to, hence day one.
What is the Science behind this remarkable Hebrew of two words?

That before day one, time did not exist, and from day one, time rushed from the matter into space.

Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Here is another example, how can a generation be the same time scale as a yom "day" GOD made heaven and earth? It is only answered by Science today, namely Einstein, and is called relativity time... time can show different times based on how time is viewed... yet this complex of time is written simply in Scripture.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,

You might remember in the dark ages a debate over the travelling of the earth and the sun....some even today believe inn a flat earth still.... the Bible states the earth is a sphere or circle....

There are examples of man fashioning metal technology....since this is recorded, is this an example of material science? Or are you after a person doing experiments to be properly called science?

(2) There is no Hebrew word "to know" or "why" or "seeking knowledge". Each of those are modern English words. Modern English was still about 3000 years in the future when the Hebrew of the Bible was written. You have made them identical.

Well if you don't translate Hebrew into English, we would have no communication ever would we? Science is just a fancy term for the gaining of knowledge. This is typically done these days using experimental procedures, but it also be done simply by observation and thinking.

Since "ab" means the "strong one in the home" a Hebrew word, then you saying their is no heavenly Father in heaven either ? Surely one can translate Hebrew into English? Sure I agree it is a feeble attempt towards meaning...but what is your point is saying this ? Are you saying one can't read their Bible in English ?

If this is an example of the "wisdom" you are gaining from reading "creation science" books and viewing their videos and reading their magazines then I fear you may be what is called by hustlers, a "mark."

Who said I read or buy Creation books ? Why are you so emotional over Creation Science scientists anyway ?

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Greeting Edward,

I dont see why the Bible isn't a science book.There's a lot of scientific knowledge in it.

I agree with you, there's plenty of Science in Scripture. I was a Science and Agriculture teacher for over 15 years, and in one private school I taught Bible science in my Agriculture class for 12 weeks straight....I used sowing techniques and growing techniques mentioned in Scripture and applied them to humans who also grow spiritually, and also made parallels to modern efforts of growing. And the teaching was detailed and deep.

When I was a missionary teacher, the University farm of our private school asked me for some advice. They were having nematode problems in the soil and this was spooling their profits....they asked me what could be done, since I was the Head Agricultural Lecturer in a College there. Instead of replying with a Science answer based on our so called modern knowledge, I used an ancient knowledge, found in the Bible...it has Science too.... and said when was the last time you fallowed your land and let is rest ? The Bible says to rest your land every 7 years and fallow 20% of the land each year... Today modern Science has fund a rest of land under grass for 3 years makes the nematodes go away.

The concept of Ceasing, "Sabbath" is not just for man, soil needs ceasing time too, but they were farming the same soil over and over for years...

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html Here is a website that mentions Science in the Bible...

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

You showed above exactly what I meant in saying that some words cannot be translated.

You have to tell me The idea
since there is no translation possible.
And many times The idea does not create a proper image of what the word means. Or, at least, not a complete one.

For instance, even in your explanation of the word "to" you write "as in going or speaking of" etc.
An exclamation mark would be necessary after the "to" or any other way Zum would be explained.
There's a tiny word in Italian that comes to mind. Dai. It has several meanings depending on how you say it, and none of them could be translated with one word. How about "mira" in Spanish. Does it really just mean "look"? No.

I've always found this interesting and has helped me to understand the limitations of words - even in the bible.

This is all true. I grew up in a place in Iowa where the old folks often still understood low German, so it seems obvious to me. English occasionally uses "toward" in the same way.

"Toward a theory of kinship selection." Could be "for", "to" "in purpose", etc.

"Zum Gott" is, I guess, idiomatic, meaning "thank God.", but perhaps contracted from "thanks to God." Really, I'm guessing too, based on what I heard as a kid.

All languages have words with no easy translation into anything else. I love "beim", which can mean lots and lots of things, with such a small investment in letters. Like "Dai", I suppose.

 

[Runner]

U tube videos such as Professor Gerald Schroeder, say time came only into being when matter rushed away from each other, since creation....

Hi, rthom7. I spent some time on the website of Gerald Schroeder, http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=211. He is clearly no crackpot:

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.
​

His actual degrees from MIT are: B.Sc. Chemical Engineering; M.Sc. Earth and Planetary Sciences; and PhD Earth Sciences and Physics. He's no match for the anonymous geniuses on Christian Forums, of course, but that's still pretty good.

He seems to be a theistic evolutionist, accepting that the earth is billions of years old but believing that the conventional theory of evolution is not a sufficient explanation for humanity. His point in regard to time is that the "six days" of Genesis and the "14-15 billion years" of conventional science are both literally true. Near the end of the six days, "earth time" began, meaning the view of time from the coordinates of earth in time and space. The six days of creation are talking about time within the compressed singularity of creation, which bears no relation to present earth time. See his article, "The Age of the Universe," at http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=53. Also "Evolution Bible Style," at http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=60.

I have always been of the view that God does exist in a timeless "now," as Douglas Summers suggested, but recently I have been reading some fairly serious theological works that suggest there are issues with this view as well. In any event, I admire your efforts to work through these mysteries - certainly you deserve better than to be accused of "babbling utter nonsense."

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

So just an observation. This thread was started on June 11th, while at this point when I write the date is the 24th. Looking at the progression of the thread, it has changed moved forward backwards and split on multipal points from multipal people. This all occured over a period of time. Some who accept the terms of evolution would say that the conversation evolved into what it is now. personally I'd like to say it progressed to this point. But either way it's looked at it's a ongoing testimony for the existiance of time, otherwise everything would have already been written at it's start.

 

[Barbarian]

Ah... nested hierarchy of topics. And without temporal sequencing, this could not happen.

Some who accept the terms of evolution would say that the conversation evolved into what it is now. personally I'd like to say it progressed to this point.

Your theory, in biology, is called "orthogenesis." That is, the idea of a straight line with change over time. Cladogenesis refers to the divergence of things forming a tree or bush. I think the latter fits this discussion quite well. However, both require time to happen.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Runner,

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. His actual degrees from MIT are: B.Sc. Chemical Engineering; M.Sc. Earth and Planetary Sciences; and PhD Earth Sciences and Physics. He's no match for the anonymous geniuses on Christian Forums, of course, but that's still pretty good.​

In any event, I admire your efforts to work through these mysteries - certainly you deserve better than to be accused of "babbling utter nonsense.

Thanks brother, it's good that some accept other theories of faith, above others...we cannot have evidence all the time, we live by faith, mysteries and our great God, who is beyond time... your comments are timeless...

Yes Gerald is a Jewish scholar and great to listen to

Shalom

 

[Jim Parker]

Are you kidding ? .

No. BUt I would ask you the same thing.
.

You must be a scientist to write so biased ?.

Don't be insulting. If you cannot support your argument without being insulting I'd prefer you not address me at all.
.

Or a science teacher perhaps? Let me show you some science concepts in the Bible...
Gen 1:5 And the evening and the morning was day one.

You have chosen the introductory genealogy of scripture and called it "science."
It is a standard convention in ancient middle eastern literature to introduce a story with a genealogy. That's what Gen 1:1 through 2:3 does. Then the story begins at Gen. 2:4.
It has nothing to do with science. It is the standard form of ancient middle eastern literature.

before day one, time did not exist

No kidding. Before God created the heavens and the earth, time and space did not exist.
That is not science because it cannot be tested and proved or disproved.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
You might remember in the dark ages a debate over the travelling of the earth and the sun....some even today believe inn a flat earth still.... the Bible states the earth is a sphere or circle....

The accepted knowledge was that the sun orbited the earth because that is what appeared to be reality.
The belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with the belief in a geocentric universe. Please try to stick to one pint in one sentence.
What some screwballs believe to day is irrelevant to the discussion.
That the Bible refers to the "circle of the earth" also has nothing to do with with a geocentric view of creation.
Did you have a point to make?
Or were you under the impression that you had actually made one?

There are examples of man fashioning metal technology....since this is recorded, is this an example of material science?

They had no "technology." They had art. They did not do "metallurgy." They did smelting and forging. A blacksmith does not do "science"; he is a craftsman not a scientist.

Or are you after a person doing experiments to be properly called science?

The word "science" has a definite meaning. (Perhaps you might look it up)
In order to have a rational and intelligent conversation, you need to either use the commonly accepted meaning of the word "science" of clearly define your own personal meaning. Otherwise, your comments will be completely unintelligible.

Well if you don't translate Hebrew into English,.....

You completely missed the point.

Who said I read or buy Creation books ? Why are you so emotional over Creation Science scientists anyway ?

A good bit of it sounds like the nonsense you are posting.

The Bible is not a science book.
But it appears that you may not know what the word "science" means and are happy to remain uninformed.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim
.
.
You have chosen the introductory genealogy of scripture and called it "science."

Are you saying Creation Science found in Genesis is not Science? Please explain your viewpoint.


It is a standard convention in ancient middle eastern literature to introduce a story with a genealogy. That's what Gen 1:1 through 2:3 does. Then the story begins at Gen. 2:4. It has nothing to do with science. It is the standard form of ancient middle eastern literature.

So your saying Genesis account of Creation is a story...fable... is that your theory of faith Jim?

Before God created the heavens and the earth, time and space did not exist.

If you believe God created the heavens and the earth, where is this evidence found except for the Genesis story... I am confused with your view...you had better explain exactly what you believe...

That is not science because it cannot be tested and proved or disproved.
Evolution is not science then, because it cannot be tested or proved....
Only microevolution and some parts of general evolution in the present time can be tested by science, the past time events is not testable... is this what your saying ?


They had no "technology." They had art. They did not do "metallurgy." They did smelting and forging. A blacksmith does not do "science"; he is a craftsman not a scientist.

Please define technology. And please define Science, so I can give you examples of your definition from Scripture...

The word "science" has a definite meaning. (Perhaps you might look it up)
In order to have a rational and intelligent conversation, you need to either use the commonly accepted meaning of the word "science" of clearly define your own personal meaning. Otherwise, your comments will be completely unintelligible.

Jim you need to define your special meaning of Science, so I can show you examples of Science in Scripture...I have been a Science teacher for over 15 years, 5 years Physics teacher, 5 years Agriculture teacher, 4 years Chemistry teacher, 5 years senior Education lecturer teaching primary teacher undergraduates primary school science, and 2 years Head of Department as the Agricultural lecturer. I have taught in both Secondary schools and private schools. I am also a computer teacher teaching IIS, IPT and IT at Senior levels.
So pardon me being dumb with my strange understanding of Science. I would you like to define what you mean by Science, and I will converse with your definition.




The Bible is not a science book.
But it appears that you may not know what the word "science" means and are happy to remain uninformed.

Sorry you feel that way, but I am willing to be informed by you.

PS
I did a little looking up Science definitions since I am so uninformed...

1) experiments and observation. : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science.



2) www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictio



3) www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Simple Definition of science. : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.



4) www.dictionary.com/browse/science

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

5) https://explorable.com/definition-of-science

The word Science comes from Latin word "scientia" meaning "knowledge" and in broadest sense it is any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice ...



6) www.reference.com › Technology › Computers & Hardware

Science is a systematic way of acquiring knowledge about a particular field of study.

Science is the systematic way of acquiring knowledge through observation and experimentation, whereas technology is the practical application of science. Technology is used to design products that improve the quality of human life

The most common idea is knowledge and observation...

Than I found this....


http://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/31719/madda

Madda

By Rabbi Julian Sinclair, May 13, 2010

The Yeshiva University school of modern Orthodoxy uses the term Torah umadda to encapsulate its vision of the relationship between Judaism and the secular world. Referring to these two realms, its Chancellor Rabbi Norman Lamm wrote, "Each alone is true, but only partially true; both together present the possibility of a larger truth." The approach aims at a synthesis between the worlds of Torah and secular wisdom.

Madda means science in modern Hebrew. Science and madda are rooted in ancient words for knowledge - science in the Latin and madda in the Hebrew.

Upon his coronation, King Solomon asked God for wisdom and madda to lead this people (II Chronicles 1:10). God praises him for not asking for wealth and honour but rather for "wisdom and madda to be able to govern My people". From these verses, it seems that madda in the Bible means a type of practical knowledge. You need wisdom plus madda in order to govern.

With madda meaning applied knowledge in the Bible, it was considered to be the perfect term for science.

I am glad Jewish Science people agree with me....

SHalom

 

[Edward]

Jim, you are correct that the bible was not intended to be a science book, that is not it's purpose.

However, there is lots of science in it. Some's perspective can see the science in it, others may not. But I think that, to try to pin it down as not, because because because, is futile (because lol) it was written (by a genius) in such a way that it could not be experimented or tested upon by mans feeble mind to "prove" something. It must be taken in faith.

 

[Kidron]

Time is a measurement.
Without it, there is no way to know how old anything is or how long anything lasts.
And because it is used FOR these reasons, this is proof it exists, and there are others.
Its also an existence boundary that is created by God for "man" and all things including the universe as we understand it to operate within, and when your time is up, its up, as time waits for no one.

 

[Jim Parker]

Are you saying Creation Science found in Genesis is not Science? Please explain your viewpoint.

You have yet to define what you mean by "Science."
According to the accepted definition, there is no science in genesis.
Neither is there any "Creation Science" in Genesis.
ANd you need to explain what you mean by that as well.

You are throwing words around which you do not define and then asking me to explain why I don't believe scripture supports those vague references.

I can't respond because I don't know exactly what you're talking about.
But then, neither do you and that's probably why you can't define your terms.

Tell me exactly what you mean by "Creation Science".

 

[Free]

A note to everyone: Address the points being made and keep this from getting personal. Speak to others in a manner which you like being spoken to.

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Jim

You overlooked the fact a Jewish University agree with me....

Here is the entire quotation
"http://www.thejc.com/judaism/jewish-words/31719/madda

Madda

By Rabbi Julian Sinclair, May 13, 2010

The Yeshiva University school of modern Orthodoxy uses the term Torah umadda to encapsulate its vision of the relationship between Judaism and the secular world. Referring to these two realms, its Chancellor Rabbi Norman Lamm wrote, "Each alone is true, but only partially true; both together present the possibility of a larger truth." The approach aims at a synthesis between the worlds of Torah and secular wisdom.

Madda means science in modern Hebrew. Science and madda are rooted in ancient words for knowledge - science in the Latin and madda in the Hebrew.

Upon his coronation, King Solomon asked God for wisdom and madda to lead this people (II Chronicles 1:10). God praises him for not asking for wealth and honour but rather for "wisdom and madda to be able to govern My people". From these verses, it seems that madda in the Bible means a type of practical knowledge. You need wisdom plus madda in order to govern.

With madda meaning applied knowledge in the Bible, it was considered to be the perfect term for science."

Jim " You have yet to define what you mean by "Science."

Science is the gaining of knowledge, whereas wisdom is the correct use of knowledge for some moral purpose. In the older days Science was obtained by looking at Nature, today Science gains knowledge through the Scientific Method. The Hebrew word for Science is Madda.... in Babylon the wizards and wise men were doing Science... for example they followed the circuits of heavenly bodies precisely.

Jim " According to the accepted definition, there is no science in genesis.

There is plenty of Science in Genesis, even all 50 chapters of it. I have video footage of Scientists such as John Sanford in genetics with the Noachian family and Jonathan Safetti on the Creation account, to name a few.

Jim " Neither is there any "Creation Science" in Genesis.
Sorry Jim but there is plenty of Science in the Creation account of Genesis...it's not a story as you claim...

Jim " ANd you need to explain what you mean by that as well.

Creation Science is the revelation of Science concepts from the Genesis account when God created the heavens and the earth. There are many ideas I have on my own website, that are unique ( and do not come from Creation Science websites)...here is a sample of what I mean by Creation Science:

Q2: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning ...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. KJV
In the beginning the FAMILY powers of GOD engineered the heavens and the earth.

The Ancient Hebrew Word reads: “The HEAD strong pressed active towards the mark” Strong’s 7225.
The Head strong pressed active towards the mark, suggests the HEAD powers had a definite purpose and plan, as we shall see Creationism is purposeful and ordered with very good beauty and function.




Before 1960 scientists worldwide mostly agreed the universe was always there and never had a beginning.

With the results of listening to echoes from radio telescopes by Wilson, scientists today generally now agree with the Bible that there was a beginning. They call the beginning the Big Bang where matter exploded into space from a central point.

The Bible on the other hand says the beginning began with GOD. The following verses tell us much about how God created the heavens and the earth in the universe.
Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD “Yahweh” were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath “ruwach” (Holy Spirit) of his mouth.
Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one Father? hath not one God “al” (Strong Authority) created us?
Habakkuk 3:4 And his brightness was as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand: and there was the hiding of his power.

These verses tell us that Jesus Christ created the world as He spoke; the Holy Spirit empowered the words into actions using the hiding power of the Father.
Thus all three Beings were involved in Creation, but the director of the whole Creation was the Son of GOD. Out of His hands from a central point the matter of the universe exploded into space, creating time along with it.


While we see some similar lines with the Big Bang theory, we will later see Creationism is an Intelligent Designer at work skilfully engineering our universe in just six literal days. Shalom


Jim "You are throwing words around which you do not define and then asking me to explain why I don't believe scripture supports those vague references.

I can't respond because I don't know exactly what you're talking about.
But then, neither do you and that's probably why you can't define your terms.

Tell me exactly what you mean by "Creation Science"

The above sample webpage is a good idea of what I mean by Creation Science
Shalom

 

[Jim Parker]

Science is the gaining of knowledge,

That is not the current, modern English, definition of "science."

You are using a vague definition of the word "science" as a basis for the "Bible Science" malarkey.

efore 1960 scientists worldwide mostly agreed the universe was always there and never had a beginning.

That is false. Hubble discovered the "red shift" in the 1920's which allowed scientists (real ones according to the real definition of "science") to (1) determine that the universe had a beginning and (2) calculate the age of the universe.

With the results of listening to echoes from radio telescopes by Wilson, scientists today generally now agree with the Bible that there was a beginning.

Wilson and Penzias accidentally discovered the background radiation from the "big bang." It was not "echos". It is the residual heat of the original explosion.

Creation Science is the revelation of Science concepts from the Genesis account when God created the heavens and the earth.

The statement that God created the heavens and the earth is not science. It is not based on scientific examination of nature; it is based on revelation. The two indeed agree that the universe had a beginning but that does not make the Bible science. It remains revelation.

While we see some similar lines with the Big Bang theory, we will later see Creationism is an Intelligent Designer at work skilfully engineering our universe in just six literal days.

And with that statement you reveal that you are ignoring the fact that science (real science, not your fuzzy usage of the word) and the Bible make radically different statements about the origin of the universe.

That the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the formation of stars and planets took multiple billions of years is based on scientific observations.
That the universe took only 144 hours to be completed, including the earth with all the forms of life in existence here, is a misinterpretation of the Genesis 1 genealogy of the heavens and the earth.
To call that genealogy science is absurd and prima facie evidence of a lack of a grasp of both science and of ancient middle eastern literature. (And please do not attempt to equate ancient Hebrew word analysis with literature as you have done with science and revelation.)

No fact describing the nature of the universe found in the Bible is based on observation, formation of an hypothesis and experimentation done to prove or disprove the hypothesis. All information about the universe found in the Bible is based on revelation.

Revelation is not science.

If you insist on equating "revelation" with "science" then you insist on using a falsehood to support your notions.
You have made the the equality of the word "science" and the word "revelation" the cornerstone of your argument. It is your primary thesis. Since your primary thesis is false, your entire argument is false.

have a nice day

 

[turnorburn]

The universe and everything in it was created in an instant..

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The world doesn't want to do this..

8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.

So it creates its own version...