
Originally Posted by
Xian120
maybe this, maybe that, or pwede sad... you have a lot of presumptions, often do you speak of creationism but rational dilemmas often causes you to switch to a new "enhanced" version of your presumptions, which speaks to me that you are not sure, much like me but with a god in the picture..
why not?
anyways,my presumptions do not suggest that i am shifting from one idea to another as i never absolutely concluded anything about the origin of the universe in physical or scientific terms.
instead, i am laying over the possibilities..
yes i am like you and everyone else in the planet who do not know how exactly the universe began in scientific terms..simply because wa pa jud nato natugkad tanan scientifically..
i am sure that there is God,what i am not sure of is how God exactly started creation.

Originally Posted by
Xian120
did not intend?.. isn't it very obvious that the author did not know?..
precisely, the author knew nothing about cosmological evolution, that's why the genesis creation accounts should not carry the burden of scientific inconsistencies for the reason that it wasn't presented as something scientific in the first place.

Originally Posted by
Xian120
yes not a science book, exactly.. but the priests, nuns and cathecists do not seem to believe so,.
some folks tend to see it that way but it's never dogmatic..although some actually makes sense.
some biblical accounts though not presented in a scientific manner can be associated with recent scientific facts..
for examples click this link:
Science and the Bible
of course, all could boil down to one's perspective..but the point is we can't blame if people would qoute biblical consistencies with science.
personally, i don't agree with a couple or more examples on the link but like i said earlier some actually makes sense. hehe