Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You are the one making the claim. The burden of proof is yours. If I allow you to shift that burden to me and find nothing then you can claim that I have not looked hard enough, ad infinitum. I'm not taking the bait. No, Sir. You make the claim. It's your job to prove it.
That statement demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy and the first law of thermodynamics.
No scientist is claiming that it is. The definition of a perpetual motion machine is a machine that produces more energy than it consumes. No scientist is claiming that the universe does that. The universe neither produces nor consumes energy.

That's the science. Either you make the effort to understand it or you don't.

A perpetual motion machine is a machine that can do work endlessly without a source of energy. What's this means is that it's a hypothetical machine that runs off its own energy, and not from an external source. Since all the universe's energy is within itself, it cannot run endlessly. In fact, it can't run at all without an external source and scripture teaches that Christ' sustains the universe with his power. He's the external power source.

Also, the Second Law of thermodynamics says that the universe will run out of usable energy. This law is all about the quality of energy. (I demonstrated how energy can become unusable when you installed way too many sprinkler heads off one pump).

http://www.livescience.com/50941-sec...odynamics.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So what makes your biased translation any more valid then mine? Because it fits your narrative of course.

Which, if true, would be the same reason you like the opinion of one Jewish rabbie.

So you can't even claim that it's true. I at least have non-religious Hebrew language experts on my side...maybe you do to. But the point is, you're hanging your hat on a paper hanger...good luck with that.

Last time I checked rabbis are religious people.

And my hat hangs on a very solid hook of many counselors. Yours hangs on the antichrist prejudice of a Jewish rabbi. You're the one the one who needs the luck.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since all the universe's energy is within itself, it cannot run endlessly. In fact, it can't run at all without an external source and scripture teaches that Christ' sustains the universe with his power. He's the external power source.

Are you saying that scripture is a science textbook?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Which, if true, would be the same reason you like the opinion of one Jewish rabbie.



Last time I checked rabbis are religious people.

And my hat hangs on a very solid hook of many counselors. Yours hangs on the antichrist prejudice of a Jewish rabbi. You're the one the one who needs the luck.

You're so dense. You can't even read. You're completely hung up on "Jewish Rabbi" which is kind of redundant anyway when you think about it...know any non-Jewish rabbis? Like I said, DENSE.

You don't have to be a rabbi to be an expert on Hebrew. Plenty of people study and are fluent in Hebrew and aren't particularly religious. Take scholars for example. There are plenty out there who will completely refute what you think you see in the OT. So, maybe if I say it enough times, you'll stop referring to the "Jewish rabbi" you seem so fond of...

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But the universe didn't become the universe on the 1st day. You might want to read the creation account. For a universe to exist, there must be Space, Matter and Time. There is no universe without these three components.

Actually it is matter and energy interacting in an arena of space and time.

The first thing God did was create the heavens (plural) and the earth. Did the earth exist as matter (which includes water)? Did it occupy space? How about those heavens? Did they occupy space? And since God started creating, would that not have been the beginning of time. So do we have matter and energy (in the existence of the earth) interacting in an arena of space and time?

Were the heavens that were created first thing out of the gate not already there when God named the sky and placed lights in the sky? By the Genesis account, the space was apparently already there for God to place stuff in. Doesn't say anything about creating new space in which to place the lights. No, they went into the heavens that were created on the first day.

So it sounds suspiciously like God created the universe on the first day, and started messing around with it, creating lights in the sky for example, separating the water from the land, creating form (apparently meaning topography). But not creating more space.

Your suggestion that the universe wasn't exactly the universe on day one, is a ridiculous diversion to substantiate a guess for which you have zero proof. I sort of wish a real physicist would call bullshit on you. Of course, you wouldn't believe him either. You can't even sustain your own argument with your own book.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Of course, they evolved, right along with and at the same pace as the universe itself. They evolved to become what we know them to be today.

The laws under which the universe functions have not changed, even if you buy the creation account literally. By the seventh day, everything was done, all the laws were in place, and the universe continued to evolve in accordance with the physical laws. I can only repeat this so many times. You do not understand the difference between a law and a theory. What we know as a scientific law today, is exactly what we would have known on day 1 of the universe had we had the capability to explore and understand.

Give me one - just one - scientific law that evolved from one thing to another. Tell me what it was, and what it became. And remember, theories are not laws. Darwinian evolution is not a law. Thermodynamics is a law, and it was the same on day one as it is today. It didn't evolve, it didn't change, and neither did how the universe functioned.

Of course if you have any proof the physical laws governing the universe changed, you have to offer that proof. No taking a wild ass guess or offering completely unsubstantiated speculation.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Are you saying that scripture is a science textbook?

Nope! But whenever it touches upon science, it's dead on target.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You're so dense. You can't even read. You're completely hung up on "Jewish Rabbi" which is kind of redundant anyway when you think about it...know any non-Jewish rabbis? Like I said, DENSE.

So, Mr. No Answers, why did you try to build your case upon a Jewish rabbi who understands the Hebrew? You're the one who introduced him.

You don't have to be a rabbi to be an expert on Hebrew. Plenty of people study and are fluent in Hebrew and aren't particularly religious. Take scholars for example. There are plenty out there who will completely refute what you think you see in the OT. So, maybe if I say it enough times, you'll stop referring to the "Jewish rabbi" you seem so fond of...[/QUOTE]

No, there is no one out there who would be able to refute my thesis that the Tri-unity of the Godhead finds its ground solidly in the OT. Certainly, "there are plenty out there who will completely" disagree with me. But not one who would be able to refute me.

I thought you were fond of that Jewish rabbi who you linked me to? No? Has your dark little heart grown cold toward that Jewish rabbi?

So...when all is said and done, you admit that there are plenty of Gentile bible language scholars out there who understand the Hebrew just as well Jewish rabbinical scholars do. Glad to see you have come around to my way of thinking. The only "remarkable" revelation you have shared with us is that many of those scholars would not agree with me and other scholars who believe the doctrine of the plurality of the Godhead has its roots deep in the OT scriptures. Really? Who would have ever thunk such a thing possible?

Now, here's your Mission Impossible: Go find someone who you think can refute my thesis about the Trinity and the OT. Don't waste your time looking around on this forum. No one is even close to being capable. You're going to have to search the Wild and Woolly WWW far and wide, from one corner to the other. Good luck with that. But who knows...Maybe you can find a Jewish rabbi, yet...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Actually it is matter and energy interacting in an arena of space and time.

The first thing God did was create the heavens (plural) and the earth. Did the earth exist as matter (which includes water)? Did it occupy space? How about those heavens? Did they occupy space? And since God started creating, would that not have been the beginning of time. So do we have matter and energy (in the existence of the earth) interacting in an arena of space and time?[/quote]

Yes, the heavens (space) and the earth) and immediately after created light and separated light from the darkness. But the planets and stars that fill the heavens were not created until day 4.

Therefore, the physical laws of the universe were not fully in place until day 4.
The rest of matter and time were not created until this day.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nope! But whenever it touches upon science, it's dead on target.

No, it's not, as demonstrated by your #2243 below.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The first thing God did was create the heavens (plural) and the earth. Did the earth exist as matter (which includes water)? Did it occupy space? How about those heavens? Did they occupy space? And since God started creating, would that not have been the beginning of time. So do we have matter and energy (in the existence of the earth) interacting in an arena of space and time?

Yes, the heavens (space) and the earth and immediately after created light and separated light from the darkness. But the planets and stars that fill the heavens were not created until day 4.

Therefore, the physical laws of the universe were not fully in place until day 4.
The rest of matter and time were not created until this day.[/QUOTE]

Do you remember how he separated light from darkness? He fixed the position of the sun, and had the earth rotate on its axis. The verb "separate" is quite a stretch in terms of meaning. There was no separation per se. He created the sun and it was simply the earth turning away from the sun on a 24-hour cycle. Not a blessed (pun intended) thing about the universe changed.

So which laws were in place on Day 1 but not in place until Day 4? I'll take any four or five you can come up with.

Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. So once the earth was there, we had matter and energy. We refer to energy as the capacity to cause change and it is a law of the universe that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be conserved and converted from one form to another.

In your version, God may have violated the law of conservation of energy ONCE. But never again was it violated. The laws of the universe have remained unchanged. So, there has been no evolution of the laws of the universe, unless of course you have some proof he didn't establish the rulebook on day one. Fortunately there is an equally plausible explanation that is just as consistent with the Genesis story. It is possible that when God did his first finger snap, he actually created matter (the earth) and the energy of the universe. I mean, you can't see energy after all, but it's there. The book is highly unclear on this, primarily because the authors had no clue about the relationship of matter and energy, but let's put that aside. God could have just as easily converted the energy created on Day 1 to matter - which stays consistent with our law - when he made all the stuff that exists beyond the earth, thus consistent with Genesis.

Let's get our facts straight on time. Is it your opinion or is it clear from the Genesis story that you so smugly assumed would straighten out this laws of the universe mess, that the beginning of time was some point OTHER than the creation of the heavens and the earth? Let me point out something your story says. In the beginning... I don't know how that is interpreted over in literal central, but doesn't the word "beginning" seem to point to the start of time? If not, then the beginning of what that had no temporal component? And how does the book refer to the periods in which God was doing his thing? The book calls them days, as in a measure of time. If Day 1 was the creation of heaven and earth, time, by definition, must have started.

So we have proven you wrong, using Genesis, about the existence of the universe on Day 1 because on Day 1 we had matter and energy interacting in an arena of space and time. There can be no doubt because the book lays it out exactly that way. God created matter and energy in a space at the beginning (there's that word again) of time. And you've got to speculate to come up with the idea that he added matter and energy to the universe for a few days, since it is no conflict with Genesis to suggest he converted the energy he created on Day 1 into matter a few days later. And he did it without violating any law of the universe.

You are the one who said the laws of the universe evolved. I've asked you a few times to name a few that are different. Crickets. Based on your interpretation of Genesis, 6,000 years ago, seven days after God kicked into action, the universe essentially existed as we see it today. Even allowing for Genesis somehow attaining scientific fact status, the laws of the universe - not the universe itself because it is in constant motion and changing in conformity with the laws of the universe - have not changed since the Big Guy rested. And there is nothing in Genesis that says the laws ever changed. We just have God fingerpainting the universe for six days, and that clearly could have been done given the same laws of the universe in effect today. A change to the universe - a star burning out for example, changes the appearance of the universe, but does not change any law of the universe.

Admit you cannot prove anything I said about Genesis is wrong and I'll let you off the hook on the changing laws of the universe.

I understand you've got to get the true believers from the Creation Institute working on some alternate explanation to what Genesis actually meant, since the inspired authors left some holes in the story. Or you might have to find one of those Hebrew scholars to tell you the original word that got translated "beginning" actually meant "in the time before time." I'll be on pins and needles waiting to see what they come up with to refute. Give my best to Ken Ham.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Nope! But whenever it touches upon science, it's dead on target.

So if a science textbook (not one from Texas) says one thing and scripture says another, then you believe scripture. How does that not make scripture a science textbook?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So if a science textbook (not one from Texas) says one thing and scripture says another, then you believe scripture. How does that not make scripture a science textbook?

Absolutely. I haven't heard any scientist claim that (s)he was the Way, the Life and the Truth. Until then...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Yes, the heavens (space) and the earth and immediately after created light and separated light from the darkness. But the planets and stars that fill the heavens were not created until day 4.

Therefore, the physical laws of the universe were not fully in place until day 4.
The rest of matter and time were not created until this day.

Do you remember how he separated light from darkness? He fixed the position of the sun, and had the earth rotate on its axis. The verb "separate" is quite a stretch in terms of meaning. There was no separation per se. He created the sun and it was simply the earth turning away from the sun on a 24-hour cycle. Not a blessed (pun intended) thing about the universe changed.

You don't read too swell, Mr. Halv. You're assuming God fixed the position of the sun, but the passage doesn't say that. Verses 1-5 say nothing about the sun. It only talks about the creation of Space and the earth. Insofar as the celestial bodies go, we read down a little farther:

Gen 1:14-19
14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth ";and it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
NASB

So which laws were in place on Day 1 but not in place until Day 4? I'll take any four or five you can come up with.

The ones that had to be in place on Day 4 were the ones not in place in Day 1. It's crystal clear from vv.14-19 above that the universe was not in a completed state by Day 1. If it were, why did it take God 6 days to finish his creation?

Morerover, Mr. Halv, why are you pretending to be a bible-believer when you believe that it took the universe gazillions of years to evolve to where it is currently? I certainly can appeal to the Creation account to show you that even during the process of creation, all the physical laws were not in place on Day 1, since the sun, the moon and countless stars were not created until Day 4. In fact, even the heavens had to be modified in Day 2. And Time itself was not a consequence of physical bodies in motion until Day 4!

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You want to believe in very slow, gradual, evolutionary processes that occurred over many ages, while at the same time refusing to believe that the laws that now govern the universe did not themselves evolve, but instead at the very inception of universe, the laws were fully developed, operational and functional at the very instant the "tiny kernel" of the universe came into existence.

Let's get our facts straight on time. Is it your opinion or is it clear from the Genesis story that you so smugly assumed would straighten out this laws of the universe mess, that the beginning of time was some point OTHER than the creation of the heavens and the earth? Let me point out something your story says. In the beginning... I don't know how that is interpreted over in literal central, but doesn't the word "beginning" seem to point to the start of time? If not, then the beginning of what that had no temporal component? And how does the book refer to the periods in which God was doing his thing? The book calls them days, as in a measure of time. If Day 1 was the creation of heaven and earth, time, by definition, must have started.

Time, as we know it, was not a reality until Day 4 since Time is produced by physical, celestial bodies in motion. (See the quoted passage above) I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand the passage. "In the beginning" simply tells us that there was a "time" only God existed. It marks the "beginning of a break in eternity", as it were -- in a spiritual or theological sense, not in a physical one (again see vv.14-19).

The only thing in motion in Day 1 was planet earth. Day 1 came about by "spiritual or theological light" shining on half the earth at any given time, as the earth turned on its axis. We could get sidetracked and discuss the nature of that light, specifically, that God called forth but it would serve no purpose because vv.14-19 clearly tell us that physical, celestial bodes would govern time. Whatever took place in vv. 1-5 concerning the light was also permanent but not in a physical sense.

And as careless as you are in the reading department (kind of reminiscent of the time we discussed what kind of animals went on the ark and when did it rain for the first time on the earth), I feel I must point out to you this little factoid" about the light in vv.1-5: Nowhere in the passage does it say God created or made the light. It does say in this passage, very specifically, that God created the heavens and the earth. But when it comes to the light, God commanded the light to shine forth. "Let there be light..."

It's very clear from these passages that the light in vv.1-5 and the LIGHTS in vv. 14-19 are not the same, nor did they serve the same purpose, nor were they created at the same time. There are very profound, spiritual/theological statements being made in vv.1-5, which you would never pick up on in a thousand years because you're not interpreting the passage in the large context of all God's counsel.

So we have proven you wrong, using Genesis, about the existence of the universe on Day 1 because on Day 1 we had matter and energy interacting in an arena of space and time.

Only in your pipe dreams.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Absolutely. I haven't heard any scientist claim that (s)he was the Way, the Life and the Truth. Until then...

That doesn't answer the question.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't read too swell, Mr. Halv. You're assuming God fixed the position of the sun, but the passage doesn't say that. Verses 1-5 say nothing about the sun. It only talks about the creation of Space and the earth.

Of all the incredibly dumb arguments you've offered, saying the verses say nothing about the sun so we don't know if it was fixed, is perhaps the dumbest.
The New International Version (used by Liberty University) says

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.

So apparently Verses 1-5 did talk about light. I'd love to hear your delusional explanation for how light didn't mean the sun. (Oh, it comes later. You have your theological light and you other light, but at some point although Genesis doesn't use the word, the sun somehow came into existence.)

For this to mean anything other than the sun was in a fixed position and the earth was rotating on its axis would be a lunatic interpretation. Not only do I read far better than you could ever hope to, I understand far better than you could ever hope to. What was the light if not the sun? Was it like your bedroom light where the earth was still (which would make one side eternally dark and the other side light when he had the switch on). Completely dimwitted to even suggest there wasn't a sun (but there was some other source of light) and the earth was not spinning so that one side of the earth was always dark (we know how that works from THE MOON). The side that was light in YOUR version had the light blink on in the morning and late in the evening. Are you smart enough to figure out how dumb that sound?

Originally Posted by boxcar

The ones that had to be in place on Day 4 were the ones not in place in Day 1. It's crystal clear from vv.14-19 above that the universe was not in a completed state by Day 1. If it were, why did it take God 6 days to finish his creation?

It is another moronic argument. You don't understand what a law of the universe is, and despite multiple efforts to get you to understand it, your cognitive deficiencies prevent that from happening. Regardless of whether the universe was completed, by the time God was done, every law was in place and operational AND DID NOT EVOLVE as you suggest. Your attempt to dodge this issue by diverting the argument to day 4, is again without merit. Which law of the universe, according to your Bible, was not in effect on Day 1. What did the creation of light and the stars have to do with new laws of the universe? I already explained to you that the creating of matter and energy - which occurred in the beginning - explains the creation of the stars, and whatever else is in the sky. The ONLY possible explanation that works is that God did what only God can do - created more matter and energy as the days went on, thus violating the law of conservation of energy - energy can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed. This ridiculous assumption (yes, it's an assumption because your Bible does not make it in any way clear) makes less sense than the one I provided you, which works for both science and the Bible. You are grasping at straws. To not admit my explanation is consistent with the Bible simply amplifies your inability to comprehend. (The bullshit later notwithstanding.)

Originally Posted by boxcar

Morerover, Mr. Halv, why are you pretending to be a bible-believer when you believe that it took the universe gazillions of years to evolve to where it is currently? I certainly can appeal to the Creation account to show you that even during the process of creation, all the physical laws were not in place on Day 1, since the sun, the moon and countless stars were not created until Day 4. In fact, even the heavens had to be modified in Day 2. And Time itself was not a consequence of physical bodies in motion until Day 4!

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You want to believe in very slow, gradual, evolutionary processes that occurred over many ages, while at the same time refusing to believe that the laws that now govern the universe did not themselves evolve, but instead at the very inception of universe, the laws were fully developed, operational and functional at the very instant the "tiny kernel" of the universe came into existence.

No, I'm not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I've contended two things. One, that the laws of the universe were in place from the creation of the universe, and they have not changed since. And two, that contention is consistent with the Genesis version of creation.

I've asked you multiple times. Which law of the universe was not in place on Day 1? And moreover, all laws of the universe, even in your jumbled version, were in place before there was anyone around to notice, and they have never changed. Even in your illogical explanation, you contend that the laws appeared in some sequential manner, but not that there was a law in place that God changed from one day to the next. The Bible clearly gives you no clue about the laws of the universe, only the things that God created, and if God created them it only makes sense he made the laws that govern them.

I'm not being disingenuous at all. What I might believe about evolution is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Time, as we know it, was not a reality until Day 4 since Time is produced by physical, celestial bodies in motion. (See the quoted passage above) I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand the passage. "In the beginning" simply tells us that there was a "time" only God existed. It marks the "beginning of a break in eternity", as it were -- in a spiritual or theological sense, not in a physical one (again see vv.14-19).

The only thing in motion in Day 1 was planet earth. Day 1 came about by "spiritual or theological light" shining on half the earth at any given time, as the earth turned on its axis. We could get sidetracked and discuss the nature of that light, specifically, that God called forth but it would serve no purpose because vv.14-19 clearly tell us that physical, celestial bodes would govern time. Whatever took place in vv. 1-5 concerning the light was also permanent but not in a physical sense.

I'm hoping to stop laughing long enough to type. Time, as we know, was not a reality until Day 4? Really? We know that? The beginning didn't mean the beginning of the earth and the heavens? It was a time when only God existed? We have also proved that at the point at which the earth and the heavens came into existence, matter and energy were in an arena of time and space. There is also no logical explanation for the absence of time when a spinning earth existed in space. And you can't make it so.

Where in the hell did you come up with this? How could "In the beginning" mean something other than at the start of things? There was no spiritual or theological (a complete misuse of the word by the way) light. Genesis 1:2 says, "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Darkness. Doesn't that mean the absence of light over at the Creation Institute?

And this theological light shone on half the earth as the earth turned on its axis (well there's a big concession - the earth was spinning)? This theological light that broke the darkness Genesis 1:2 says existed?

You couldn't convince a five year old that your explanation even begins to make sense. If time is produced by physical, celestial bodies in motion, and the earth was spinning after it was created, you just contradicted yourself on the beginning of time. The fact that you can't see that you make no sense and contradict yourself, would embarrass someone with any self-respect. Lucky for you....

Originally Posted by boxcar

And as careless as you are in the reading department (kind of reminiscent of the time we discussed what kind of animals went on the ark and when did it rain for the first time on the earth), I feel I must point out to you this little factoid" about the light in vv.1-5: Nowhere in the passage does it say God created or made the light. It does say in this passage, very specifically, that God created the heavens and the earth. But when it comes to the light, God commanded the light to shine forth. "Let there be light..."

It's very clear from these passages that the light in vv.1-5 and the LIGHTS in vv. 14-19 are not the same, nor did they serve the same purpose, nor were they created at the same time. There are very profound, spiritual/theological statements being made in vv.1-5, which you would never pick up on in a thousand years because you're not interpreting the passage in the large context of all God's counsel.

I'd honestly like to hear a consensus of Biblical scholars (not from the third standard deviation to the right part of the religious community) who would agree with this, because you really have to torture the words to make them mean something other than the plain and clear meaning.

In any case, you completely dodged the issue of which laws of the universe did exist "in the beginning." Even the creation of light or trees or whatever, did not have to occur as a result of the evolution of universal laws. Once God created matter and energy in an arena of time and space he had created - and even your Creation Institute agrees with this definition - a universe. Even your verses say he placed lights and stars and whatever in the space he had created. To try to have a ridiculous discussion about the type of light is only your feeble attempt to dodge the issue. Laws of the universe.

You have not come up with one law that "evolved" since the beginning. The best you have offered is that there must have been new laws on Day 4 or something. It only underscores your lack of understanding of laws of the universe, which I believe is something we've established quite a few posts ago.

Not a single one of your arguments proves your statement - your started the discussion - that the laws of the universe have changed over time. You couldn't offer any proof - even fake proof from the Bible - that anything in Genesis even implied a change in physical law. And even if you could possibly come up with such an explanation - and you can't - from the beginning of recorded history there has been no change in physical laws.

The metaphorical nature of Genesis is an entirely different issue. This isn't about the young earth. For you to believe something it had to be proven within the context of your book. I proved that Genesis is consistent with the statement, the laws of the universe have not changed since the beginning of the universe. The converse is also true. There is nothing in Genesis that contradicts the statement. Nothing you have offered has the slightest relevance to the contention the laws of the universe have not evolved. You have offered not one single piece of evidence - in fact you've regularly contradicted yourself - that that statement is provably false. Even light A versus light B has nothing to do with changing the laws of the universe. That statement in Genesis is perfectly consistent with the idea that the laws of the universe were in place and didn't change.

The fact that you can't see this stuff would be comical if you weren't so insistent the your ability to interpret plain language in whatever way you want could prove anything. You failed the test. You couldn't list a single law of the universe that evolved or continues to evolve.

In the words of fearless leader, what a loser.