Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

[POI]

He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

May I suggest you read the thread "Bible Riddle"

Could you give a link and maybe a summary of how it explains the question so we know what we are looking for? r Ok, I found it. possibly it was intended - the extraordinary long lives claimed- to signify it wasn't intended literally. But riddle it isn't. Pharonic lives (Ramesses II's was notably long, but short of 100 years) just give the lie to those long lives. They are fantastical and fictional.

Possibly the writers of the Origin Chapters saw the long lives in the old Mesopotamian king - lists and reckoned their Patriarchs had to do the same. Either way, it is neither believable, nor the primary reason to find the Bible unbelievable.

[cleopas]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #51]

It's not about long lives.....do you see the mathematical connections. It seems impossible that they would have died and their live spans form a mathematical connection... It reeks of fabrication.

[Capbook]

Yes, because God finished the work He had been doing on the literal seventh day of creation (Gen 2:3) and not of the long span of time belief of some and of science.

Have you truly studied the physical sciences for which you are required to reject? Further, do you feel you would still reject these concepts, if the publication of Genesis did not exist?

Even in the absence of Genesis, I would not rely solely to science, as for me it is not the only source to the truth as what some scientists believe. Even the idea that science is the only source of truth is not a scientific idea.

[Capbook]

He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

Incomplete evidence is the basis of an evidence -based case. We never know All the evidence, just see how thr age of the universe has come under question or on the other hand, the Gabriel stone has suggested that the messiah raised after three days was a thing known before Jesus' crucifixion.

No, we have to go with the best evidence at the time and be prepared to amend it when new evidence pops up.

What we should not do is insist that the Old debunked evidence is correct and reject the new evidence, if it conflicts with Dogma, which is what Religious Dogma habitually does.

The age of the universe and even the creation of the universe are under question, where as Hawking say because there is the Law of Gravity the universe was created but Isaac Newton who discover The Law of Gravity was his argument for belief in God.

The best evidence I know is that the pioneers of science Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clark Maxwell were all believers in God.

Before the belief of Science and Religion were connected but just because of some scientists whom insists that science is the only source truth is not even a scientific idea.

[TRANSPONDER]

He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

Incomplete evidence is the basis of an evidence -based case. We never know All the evidence, just see how thr age of the universe has come under question or on the other hand, the Gabriel stone has suggested that the messiah raised after three days was a thing known before Jesus' crucifixion.

No, we have to go with the best evidence at the time and be prepared to amend it when new evidence pops up.

What we should not do is insist that the Old debunked evidence is correct and reject the new evidence, if it conflicts with Dogma, which is what Religious Dogma habitually does.

The age of the universe and even the creation of the universe are under question, where as Hawking say because there is the Law of Gravity the universe was created but Isaac Newton who discover The Law of Gravity was his argument for belief in God.

The best evidence I know is that the pioneers of science Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clark Maxwell were all believers in God.

Before the belief of Science and Religion were connected but just because of some scientists whom insists that science is the only source truth is not even a scientific idea.

You are under a misconception based on a Biblical idea that Truth is proclaimed in a Book and never changes (though Bibletruth changes more than it likes to admit). In fact science has always been aware of not knowing everything but makes models of reality based on the information to hand. So Eratosthenes replaced a flat earth with a round one. Ptolemy replaced a sky dome with a planetary system. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy's geocentric system with a heliocentric system. Kepler replaced the circular orbits with elliptical ones. Does that mean that Copernicus and science were wrong? No, because the knowledge was improved and each revision in no way means that we should discard science and go back to the snowdome cosmos of Genesis.

It makes no difference whether these people were Bible believers or not. In fact 'God' was the only hypothesis on the table until Darwin really made deism obsolete. Newton believed in God, but produced the science that helped debunk that claim. Lemaitre thought the Big bang (he discovered) was evidence of creation. Now Believers seem to debunk the Big Bang as a natural start of the universe.

So your argument (the whole Theist or at least Creationist) argument is wrongheaded, and they have taught it to you. They do not understand what science is or how it works, and so the argument is rubbish. Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources.

What is not forgivable is when their error is pointed out,but faithbased denial makes them ignore or reject it.

But anyway the point is that the evidence, based on the Hubble constant, gave an age of the universe of 14 or so billion years. The Webb telescope has produced more info that suggests a revision of the age or the universe to 21 billion years. If so, that merely means that the previous estimates have to be revised because of new information. It does NOT mean we go back to a 6 day creation any more than science showing Herschel that the stars were not all at the same distance meant science was wrong and we must go back to genesis and the Babylonian flat earth and sky - dome.

It's a hoot how Bible apologists think that if a supposed Holybook dogma of science is rethought, this debunks science.

It is a wrongheadedness based on the laughable concept of an unchanging word of God set out in a Holy Book, which fatheaded belief they mistakenly foist upon science. The hilarious thing being they do revise the Holy book at need and even disagree on what it supposedly says, far more than science ever did.

[Capbook]

He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

Incomplete evidence is the basis of an evidence -based case. We never know All the evidence, just see how thr age of the universe has come under question or on the other hand, the Gabriel stone has suggested that the messiah raised after three days was a thing known before Jesus' crucifixion.

No, we have to go with the best evidence at the time and be prepared to amend it when new evidence pops up.

What we should not do is insist that the Old debunked evidence is correct and reject the new evidence, if it conflicts with Dogma, which is what Religious Dogma habitually does.

The age of the universe and even the creation of the universe are under question, where as Hawking say because there is the Law of Gravity the universe was created but Isaac Newton who discover The Law of Gravity was his argument for belief in God.

The best evidence I know is that the pioneers of science Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clark Maxwell were all believers in God.

Before the belief of Science and Religion were connected but just because of some scientists whom insists that science is the only source truth is not even a scientific idea.

You are under a misconception based on a Biblical idea that Truth is proclaimed in a Book and never changes (though Bibletruth changes more than it likes to admit). In fact science has always been aware of not knowing everything but makes models of reality based on the information to hand. So Eratosthenes replaced a flat earth with a round one. Ptolemy replaced a sky dome with a planetary system. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy's geocentric system with a heliocentric system. Kepler replaced the circular orbits with elliptical ones. Does that mean that Copernicus and science were wrong? No, because the knowledge was improved and each revision in no way means that we should discard science and go back to the snowdome cosmos of Genesis.

It makes no difference whether these people were Bible believers or not. In fact 'God' was the only hypothesis on the table until Darwin really made deism obsolete. Newton believed in God, but produced the science that helped debunk that claim. Lemaitre thought the Big bang (he discovered) was evidence of creation. Now Believers seem to debunk the Big Bang as a natural start of the universe.

So your argument (the whole Theist or at least Creationist) argument is wrongheaded, and they have taught it to you. They do not understand what science is or how it works, and so the argument is rubbish. Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources.

What is not forgivable is when their error is pointed out,but faithbased denial makes them ignore or reject it.

But anyway the point is that the evidence, based on the Hubble constant, gave an age of the universe of 14 or so billion years. The Webb telescope has produced more info that suggests a revision of the age or the universe to 21 billion years. If so, that merely means that the previous estimates have to be revised because of new information. It does NOT mean we go back to a 6 day creation any more than science showing Herschel that the stars were not all at the same distance meant science was wrong and we must go back to genesis and the Babylonian flat earth and sky - dome.

It's a hoot how Bible apologists think that if a supposed Holybook dogma of science is rethought, this debunks science.

It is a wrongheadedness based on the laughable concept of an unchanging word of God set out in a Holy Book, which fatheaded belief they mistakenly foist upon science. The hilarious thing being they do revise the Holy book at need and even disagree on what it supposedly says, far more than science ever did.

You did not addressed the famous scientist Hawking's laughable circular reasoning of why universe created itself.

The pioneers were believers in God and their faith in God didn't hinder their science, it was the motor that drove it to them a reason to think that the universe was intelligently organized in terms of law and so on.

You say, "Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources".
How about your source? "Nonsense remains nonsense" even spoken by famous scientist.
That's nonsense.

What is not forgivable is the statements of scientists, just because they are scientist made us to believe of something even it is not science.

Can science mention a name of the first human of evolution? Can science do that? I don't think so.
But the Bible can.

[TRANSPONDER]

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

Incomplete evidence is the basis of an evidence -based case. We never know All the evidence, just see how thr age of the universe has come under question or on the other hand, the Gabriel stone has suggested that the messiah raised after three days was a thing known before Jesus' crucifixion.

No, we have to go with the best evidence at the time and be prepared to amend it when new evidence pops up.

What we should not do is insist that the Old debunked evidence is correct and reject the new evidence, if it conflicts with Dogma, which is what Religious Dogma habitually does.

The age of the universe and even the creation of the universe are under question, where as Hawking say because there is the Law of Gravity the universe was created but Isaac Newton who discover The Law of Gravity was his argument for belief in God.

The best evidence I know is that the pioneers of science Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clark Maxwell were all believers in God.

Before the belief of Science and Religion were connected but just because of some scientists whom insists that science is the only source truth is not even a scientific idea.

You are under a misconception based on a Biblical idea that Truth is proclaimed in a Book and never changes (though Bibletruth changes more than it likes to admit). In fact science has always been aware of not knowing everything but makes models of reality based on the information to hand. So Eratosthenes replaced a flat earth with a round one. Ptolemy replaced a sky dome with a planetary system. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy's geocentric system with a heliocentric system. Kepler replaced the circular orbits with elliptical ones. Does that mean that Copernicus and science were wrong? No, because the knowledge was improved and each revision in no way means that we should discard science and go back to the snowdome cosmos of Genesis.

It makes no difference whether these people were Bible believers or not. In fact 'God' was the only hypothesis on the table until Darwin really made deism obsolete. Newton believed in God, but produced the science that helped debunk that claim. Lemaitre thought the Big bang (he discovered) was evidence of creation. Now Believers seem to debunk the Big Bang as a natural start of the universe.

So your argument (the whole Theist or at least Creationist) argument is wrongheaded, and they have taught it to you. They do not understand what science is or how it works, and so the argument is rubbish. Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources.

What is not forgivable is when their error is pointed out,but faithbased denial makes them ignore or reject it.

But anyway the point is that the evidence, based on the Hubble constant, gave an age of the universe of 14 or so billion years. The Webb telescope has produced more info that suggests a revision of the age or the universe to 21 billion years. If so, that merely means that the previous estimates have to be revised because of new information. It does NOT mean we go back to a 6 day creation any more than science showing Herschel that the stars were not all at the same distance meant science was wrong and we must go back to genesis and the Babylonian flat earth and sky - dome.

It's a hoot how Bible apologists think that if a supposed Holybook dogma of science is rethought, this debunks science.

It is a wrongheadedness based on the laughable concept of an unchanging word of God set out in a Holy Book, which fatheaded belief they mistakenly foist upon science. The hilarious thing being they do revise the Holy book at need and even disagree on what it supposedly says, far more than science ever did.

You did not addressed the famous scientist Hawking's laughable circular reasoning of why universe created itself.

The pioneers were believers in God and their faith in God didn't hinder their science, it was the motor that drove it to them a reason to think that the universe was intelligently organized in terms of law and so on.

You say, "Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources".
How about your source? "Nonsense remains nonsense" even spoken by famous scientist.
That's nonsense.

What is not forgivable is the statements of scientists, just because they are scientist made us to believe of something even it is not science.

Can science mention a name of the first human of evolution? Can science do that? I don't think so.
But the Bible can.

Right. It would be easy to just laugh, but this is excellent 'bad apologetics' so let me use it. You laugh at Hawking's theory because it makes no sense to you. Hawking worked out black holes, and that was doubted by people smarter than you and me. He was right. Cosmic origins without a god may make no sense to you and even look counter intuitive to me, but is quantum and indeterminacy or the holographic universe anything but difficult to believe? Then don't be so quick to laugh at what Hawking worked out even more since it seems that you don't know what is circular argument about it, never mind understanding Hawking's argument. So never mind your 'nonsense remains nonesnse.' Appeal to incredulity (I don't understand it, so it can't be true') is a logical fallacy.

The amusing thing is that Theists use the 'skeptics laughed at powered flight' argument to validate faith claims without evidence, but Hawking's claim with mathematical support, you laugh at. I'll give you another fallacy - double standards.

To address your confused and manipulated appeal to creationist scientists, I believe I already said this: - yes these scientists thought they were showing the work of God. It is just that increasingly it was showing it worked without a god.

So you tweak the conclusion to pretend that ID is scientific. It is not and the Dover trial said so in a court of law that it was not science (and so the creationists denied the validity of law). After the Dover tria,l Creationists in the Bible belt states tried to redefine science in law as whatever religious leaders said it was. Don't you people preach to me what is science and what is not.

And there is a nice little rhetorical scam apologists try to pul.l Ask something they are sure Atheists can't address (whether it's butterflies into Mammoths or what was the name of the first man (1) and pin the 'one shot ' argument on that. Can you say how many people were at the sermon on the mount? Can you say the names of the guards sent to the tomb? Can you name the owner of the shop where the women bought the ointments? Of course you can't, and nobody reasonable would expect you to.

In fact none of this matters. Even if a god started the universe, you can't prove which one, and evolution is still supported by the evidence and creation is not. And even if the Bible gives names to people, there is no good reason why anyone should take that seriously.

(1) in fact to speak of 'first man' is a fallacy. the fallacy of the beard - in evolutionary terms, it is a bit tricky to say where ape ended and man started. Of course, you deny evolution. Fine, but at least understand the theory you are trying to debunk.

[Capbook]

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

Incomplete evidence is the basis of an evidence -based case. We never know All the evidence, just see how thr age of the universe has come under question or on the other hand, the Gabriel stone has suggested that the messiah raised after three days was a thing known before Jesus' crucifixion.

No, we have to go with the best evidence at the time and be prepared to amend it when new evidence pops up.

What we should not do is insist that the Old debunked evidence is correct and reject the new evidence, if it conflicts with Dogma, which is what Religious Dogma habitually does.

The age of the universe and even the creation of the universe are under question, where as Hawking say because there is the Law of Gravity the universe was created but Isaac Newton who discover The Law of Gravity was his argument for belief in God.

The best evidence I know is that the pioneers of science Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clark Maxwell were all believers in God.

Before the belief of Science and Religion were connected but just because of some scientists whom insists that science is the only source truth is not even a scientific idea.

You are under a misconception based on a Biblical idea that Truth is proclaimed in a Book and never changes (though Bibletruth changes more than it likes to admit). In fact science has always been aware of not knowing everything but makes models of reality based on the information to hand. So Eratosthenes replaced a flat earth with a round one. Ptolemy replaced a sky dome with a planetary system. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy's geocentric system with a heliocentric system. Kepler replaced the circular orbits with elliptical ones. Does that mean that Copernicus and science were wrong? No, because the knowledge was improved and each revision in no way means that we should discard science and go back to the snowdome cosmos of Genesis.

It makes no difference whether these people were Bible believers or not. In fact 'God' was the only hypothesis on the table until Darwin really made deism obsolete. Newton believed in God, but produced the science that helped debunk that claim. Lemaitre thought the Big bang (he discovered) was evidence of creation. Now Believers seem to debunk the Big Bang as a natural start of the universe.

So your argument (the whole Theist or at least Creationist) argument is wrongheaded, and they have taught it to you. They do not understand what science is or how it works, and so the argument is rubbish. Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources.

What is not forgivable is when their error is pointed out,but faithbased denial makes them ignore or reject it.

But anyway the point is that the evidence, based on the Hubble constant, gave an age of the universe of 14 or so billion years. The Webb telescope has produced more info that suggests a revision of the age or the universe to 21 billion years. If so, that merely means that the previous estimates have to be revised because of new information. It does NOT mean we go back to a 6 day creation any more than science showing Herschel that the stars were not all at the same distance meant science was wrong and we must go back to genesis and the Babylonian flat earth and sky - dome.

It's a hoot how Bible apologists think that if a supposed Holybook dogma of science is rethought, this debunks science.

It is a wrongheadedness based on the laughable concept of an unchanging word of God set out in a Holy Book, which fatheaded belief they mistakenly foist upon science. The hilarious thing being they do revise the Holy book at need and even disagree on what it supposedly says, far more than science ever did.

You did not addressed the famous scientist Hawking's laughable circular reasoning of why universe created itself.

The pioneers were believers in God and their faith in God didn't hinder their science, it was the motor that drove it to them a reason to think that the universe was intelligently organized in terms of law and so on.

You say, "Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources".
How about your source? "Nonsense remains nonsense" even spoken by famous scientist.
That's nonsense.

What is not forgivable is the statements of scientists, just because they are scientist made us to believe of something even it is not science.

Can science mention a name of the first human of evolution? Can science do that? I don't think so.
But the Bible can.

Right. It would be easy to just laugh, but this is excellent 'bad apologetics' so let me use it. You laugh at Hawking's theory because it makes no sense to you. Hawking worked out black holes, and that was doubted by people smarter than you and me. He was right. Cosmic origins without a god may make no sense to you and even look counter intuitive to me, but is quantum and indeterminacy or the holographic universe anything but difficult to believe? Then don't be so quick to laugh at what Hawking worked out even more since it seems that you don't know what is circular argument about it, never mind understanding Hawking's argument. So never mind your 'nonsense remains nonesnse.' Appeal to incredulity (I don't understand it, so it can't be true') is a logical fallacy.

The amusing thing is that Theists use the 'skeptics laughed at powered flight' argument to validate faith claims without evidence, but Hawking's claim with mathematical support, you laugh at. I'll give you another fallacy - double standards.

To address your confused and manipulated appeal to creationist scientists, I believe I already said this: - yes these scientists thought they were showing the work of God. It is just that increasingly it was showing it worked without a god.

So you tweak the conclusion to pretend that ID is scientific. It is not and the Dover trial said so in a court of law that it was not science (and so the creationists denied the validity of law). After the Dover tria,l Creationists in the Bible belt states tried to redefine science in law as whatever religious leaders said it was. Don't you people preach to me what is science and what is not.

And there is a nice little rhetorical scam apologists try to pul.l Ask something they are sure Atheists can't address (whether it's butterflies into Mammoths or what was the name of the first man (1) and pin the 'one shot ' argument on that. Can you say how many people were at the sermon on the mount? Can you say the names of the guards sent to the tomb? Can you name the owner of the shop where the women bought the ointments? Of course you can't, and nobody reasonable would expect you to.

In fact none of this matters. Even if a god started the universe, you can't prove which one, and evolution is still supported by the evidence and creation is not. And even if the Bible gives names to people, there is no good reason why anyone should take that seriously.

(1) in fact to speak of 'first man' is a fallacy. the fallacy of the beard - in evolutionary terms, it is a bit tricky to say where ape ended and man started. Of course, you deny evolution. Fine, but at least understand the theory you are trying to debunk.

You noticed my used of "laughable"? You are the first who used it about our Word of God, see your post I highlighted it.
Hawking is basically saying " The universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself." a Cambridge schoolmate of Hawking called it circular reasoning.
And say that "Nonsense remains nonsense" even if spoken by a famous scientist.

Who first used the word laughable? Your fallacy standard points to you.

You said...."yes these scientists thought they were showing the work of God. It is just that increasingly it was showing it worked without a god".
That is just showing the idea that science is the only source of truth, a not scientific idea.

The pioneers of science reasoned to think that the universe was intelligently organized in terms of law and so on. (ID) Intelligently Designed)

I just ought to believe as some scientists claim that science is the only source of truth, know the name of the first human of evolution.

The pioneers of science knows who created the intelligently organized universe, just until this famous scientist who state a circular reasoning. Evolution is Darwin's theory and theory never become facts.

[TRANSPONDER]

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

Incomplete evidence is the basis of an evidence -based case. We never know All the evidence, just see how thr age of the universe has come under question or on the other hand, the Gabriel stone has suggested that the messiah raised after three days was a thing known before Jesus' crucifixion.

No, we have to go with the best evidence at the time and be prepared to amend it when new evidence pops up.

What we should not do is insist that the Old debunked evidence is correct and reject the new evidence, if it conflicts with Dogma, which is what Religious Dogma habitually does.

The age of the universe and even the creation of the universe are under question, where as Hawking say because there is the Law of Gravity the universe was created but Isaac Newton who discover The Law of Gravity was his argument for belief in God.

The best evidence I know is that the pioneers of science Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clark Maxwell were all believers in God.

Before the belief of Science and Religion were connected but just because of some scientists whom insists that science is the only source truth is not even a scientific idea.

You are under a misconception based on a Biblical idea that Truth is proclaimed in a Book and never changes (though Bibletruth changes more than it likes to admit). In fact science has always been aware of not knowing everything but makes models of reality based on the information to hand. So Eratosthenes replaced a flat earth with a round one. Ptolemy replaced a sky dome with a planetary system. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy's geocentric system with a heliocentric system. Kepler replaced the circular orbits with elliptical ones. Does that mean that Copernicus and science were wrong? No, because the knowledge was improved and each revision in no way means that we should discard science and go back to the snowdome cosmos of Genesis.

It makes no difference whether these people were Bible believers or not. In fact 'God' was the only hypothesis on the table until Darwin really made deism obsolete. Newton believed in God, but produced the science that helped debunk that claim. Lemaitre thought the Big bang (he discovered) was evidence of creation. Now Believers seem to debunk the Big Bang as a natural start of the universe.

So your argument (the whole Theist or at least Creationist) argument is wrongheaded, and they have taught it to you. They do not understand what science is or how it works, and so the argument is rubbish. Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources.

What is not forgivable is when their error is pointed out,but faithbased denial makes them ignore or reject it.

But anyway the point is that the evidence, based on the Hubble constant, gave an age of the universe of 14 or so billion years. The Webb telescope has produced more info that suggests a revision of the age or the universe to 21 billion years. If so, that merely means that the previous estimates have to be revised because of new information. It does NOT mean we go back to a 6 day creation any more than science showing Herschel that the stars were not all at the same distance meant science was wrong and we must go back to genesis and the Babylonian flat earth and sky - dome.

It's a hoot how Bible apologists think that if a supposed Holybook dogma of science is rethought, this debunks science.

It is a wrongheadedness based on the laughable concept of an unchanging word of God set out in a Holy Book, which fatheaded belief they mistakenly foist upon science. The hilarious thing being they do revise the Holy book at need and even disagree on what it supposedly says, far more than science ever did.

You did not addressed the famous scientist Hawking's laughable circular reasoning of why universe created itself.

The pioneers were believers in God and their faith in God didn't hinder their science, it was the motor that drove it to them a reason to think that the universe was intelligently organized in terms of law and so on.

You say, "Bible apologists are forgivable because they get their apologetics from ignorant or lying apologetics sources".
How about your source? "Nonsense remains nonsense" even spoken by famous scientist.
That's nonsense.

What is not forgivable is the statements of scientists, just because they are scientist made us to believe of something even it is not science.

Can science mention a name of the first human of evolution? Can science do that? I don't think so.
But the Bible can.

Right. It would be easy to just laugh, but this is excellent 'bad apologetics' so let me use it. You laugh at Hawking's theory because it makes no sense to you. Hawking worked out black holes, and that was doubted by people smarter than you and me. He was right. Cosmic origins without a god may make no sense to you and even look counter intuitive to me, but is quantum and indeterminacy or the holographic universe anything but difficult to believe? Then don't be so quick to laugh at what Hawking worked out even more since it seems that you don't know what is circular argument about it, never mind understanding Hawking's argument. So never mind your 'nonsense remains nonesnse.' Appeal to incredulity (I don't understand it, so it can't be true') is a logical fallacy.

The amusing thing is that Theists use the 'skeptics laughed at powered flight' argument to validate faith claims without evidence, but Hawking's claim with mathematical support, you laugh at. I'll give you another fallacy - double standards.

To address your confused and manipulated appeal to creationist scientists, I believe I already said this: - yes these scientists thought they were showing the work of God. It is just that increasingly it was showing it worked without a god.

So you tweak the conclusion to pretend that ID is scientific. It is not and the Dover trial said so in a court of law that it was not science (and so the creationists denied the validity of law). After the Dover tria,l Creationists in the Bible belt states tried to redefine science in law as whatever religious leaders said it was. Don't you people preach to me what is science and what is not.

And there is a nice little rhetorical scam apologists try to pul.l Ask something they are sure Atheists can't address (whether it's butterflies into Mammoths or what was the name of the first man (1) and pin the 'one shot ' argument on that. Can you say how many people were at the sermon on the mount? Can you say the names of the guards sent to the tomb? Can you name the owner of the shop where the women bought the ointments? Of course you can't, and nobody reasonable would expect you to.

In fact none of this matters. Even if a god started the universe, you can't prove which one, and evolution is still supported by the evidence and creation is not. And even if the Bible gives names to people, there is no good reason why anyone should take that seriously.

(1) in fact to speak of 'first man' is a fallacy. the fallacy of the beard - in evolutionary terms, it is a bit tricky to say where ape ended and man started. Of course, you deny evolution. Fine, but at least understand the theory you are trying to debunk.

You noticed my used of "laughable"? You are the first who used it about our Word of God, see your post I highlighted it.
Hawking is basically saying " The universe exist because the universe needed to exist and because the universe needed to exist, it therefore created itself." a Cambridge schoolmate of Hawking called it circular reasoning.
And say that "Nonsense remains nonsense" even if spoken by a famous scientist.

Who first used the word laughable? Your fallacy standard points to you.

You said...."yes these scientists thought they were showing the work of God. It is just that increasingly it was showing it worked without a god".
That is just showing the idea that science is the only source of truth, a not scientific idea.

The pioneers of science reasoned to think that the universe was intelligently organized in terms of law and so on. (ID) Intelligently Designed)

I just ought to believe as some scientists claim that science is the only source of truth, know the name of the first human of evolution.

The pioneers of science knows who created the intelligently organized universe, just until this famous scientist who state a circular reasoning. Evolution is Darwin's theory and theory never become facts.

Ok .So I used 'laughable' first. I stand by that.When you apply it, it is applied to arguments you don't present correctly. So I am justified in using the term; you are not.

You misunderstand science. You seem to confuse it with Dogma. Deductive work done on raw data is what 'science' is. It is the evidence that is the source of truth, not science. as a dogma. You may dispute the validity of the evidence - it's why we debate here. But to dismiss science through not understanding it is 'laughable'.

Intelligent design has failed to make a case, both as presented by the old scientists (if that is what they did) and by more recent apologists. It was definitively labelled as 'not science' at the Kitzmiller v.Dover trial.

I did this 'name of first human'argument already. Aside that 'first human' is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary case, that not every single detail is known doesn't invalidate it, no more than you not knowing the names of the Tomb guard invalidates the resurrection. It is a laughable argument.

Cosmic origins isn't a circular argument either way. It is an Unknown. Hypotheses can be argued and 'nothing from nothing' is not in fact a circular or even a nonsensical argument. It is counter intuitive, but so is indeterminacy, but that seems to be a real thing and experiments have suggested that something from nothing is not so impossible as it seems.

But however that may be, cosmic (or Life) origins being unknown does not mean that a god is the default hypothesis. That idea is the faithbased assumption that invalidates pretty much all theist apologetics. And even if it was valid, it would not tell you which god it was. Your arguments (even where valid) fail to make a case for a god, let alone for Biblegod.