The Nature of Scepticism

It says the earth was made "in the beginning."The earth came 10 billion years after the big bang.If genesis is divinely inspired, whatever "the beginning" is describing is not the big bang.

Don't tell me that my reading comprehension is poor.Every time someone shows how you are wrong you accuse them of having poor reading comprehension.I'll have you know that when I took the GMAT I did severely well regarding reading comprehension. Your assessment is shit.The first sentence plainly reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth."It clearly and literally says that the earth was made "in the beginning."It's wrong.Premise 1: The "beginning" is in regard to the big bang. (Your claim)Premise 2: The earth was made "in the beginning." (biblical claim)Conclusion: The earth was made at the moment of the big bang.Is that true? No. The earth was not made at the moment of the big bang. Therefore, one or both of the premises is wrong.It's your reading comprehension that is poor. Not mine.

Certainly appears to be moving to me.

You should pay more attention. The very words that you quoted me saying are thus:"The first sentence plainly reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.""My claim is that the bible says the earth was created. Don't tell me that my reading comprehension is terrible and then repeat what I had intitially said as if you are correcting me.Compounded with the fact that you have singled out a non-point and completely missed what the actual issue was (that the earth did not exist at the point of the big bang), it is YOUR reading comprehension that is in question here.Edited by Eli, : No reason given.

No, there is no one making any commentary on the existence of any god when they reject your very foolish revision of the bible.We are only rejecting what YOU CLAIM the bible says. Some do believe in the Christian god, some do not. That isn't the argument.And there is no mystery as to what "force" is. We aren't talking about Star Wars.

It is man who does the correcting. Studies don't write themselves.You really need to stop personifying everything.

Not to be ironic, but you probably shouldn't try to lecture on knowledge and methods to arrive at it when you are ignorant of how many algebraic postulates there are (the very methods you are giving examples of are wrong.)If you are ignorant of what the actual axioms are, or if you exclude some to fit in with a preconcieved notion (in this case a numerological bias) you cannot use them to derive truth.