The Religion Discussion

[bluesclues]

it is also clear in your response to habit7's video. you sidetrack the entire topic of the video, which really aims to demonstrate the religio scientific contributions that have been made throughout recorded history. the world's greatest inventions have come from men who believed in God. men who were able to keep their faith and their scientific process separate, producing pure scientific theory even though they believe in a sentient creator.

but noooo, u jump around the whoooole topic to talk about a sad appeal to authority. its pathetic. u can never accuse me of doing such things. i answer every question directly on spiritual matters which i support. and on scientific matters. what you really talking about? the answer.. is nothing. u just talking for talking sake and literally have nothing useful to contribute. everything u contribute is perverted and twisted to your bias. THAT IS NOT GOOD SCIENCE!

so i commit, you are a fraud. a waste of time in that your only qualm really seems to be that "you want someone to talk to" but maybe one day you will realize that that gaping hole in your life that you cannot fill. the one you know im talking about. the one that makes you feel empty. can only be filled by God. reject him blaspheme him and speak ill of him all you want. doesnt change the fact, that when you dead, u goin to find out the truth. so i dont have to argue with your stubborn and demented discussion style.

[bluesclues]

Megadoc well tell me what was the purpose of Habit's pevious post. What point was he trying to make. Habit feel free to chime in on what your intentions were because none of that post responded to anything I said about it. You just dragged up some of my quotations out of context.

before he was having a discussion with habit7, and i posted something which rides also on that topic. but all of a sudden, habit7 posts a strong informative piece of content. what was his move? to forget what the topic was and pretend the topic was about promoting religion by using the names and faces of big scientific contributors.

THEY WER RELIGIOUS MEN.. GET THE POINT? THAT WAS THE TOPIC. JUST LIKE LEMAITRE WHO SIMPLY KEPT HIS RELIGIOUS FAITH FROM CREATING BIASES IN HIS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

Not to mention the video doesn't disprove on megate any of my quotations. It doesn't say how the church contributed to science. It doesn't show science proves religion. It doesn't show if or how the church affected the outcome of the scientific experiments. Was there a "Jesus" or "God" anywhere in the results of any experiments that are still acceptable today?

look more bs. he says it doesnt say how the church contributed to science. obviously he didnt watch the video. not with any focal intent on learning anyway. didnt you see the part where it speaks about the scientific revolution in the 1600s? ohh u just missed that? when the mission of science was defined and by whom?

the next question is absolutely idiotic. WHY IN THE HELL WOULD THE CHURCH TRY TO INFLUENCE SCIENTIFIC RESULTS WHEN SCIENCE WAS FORMED WITH THE IDEA OF OBSERVING NATURE AND A SCIENTIFIC METHOD WAS DEVELOPED TO PREVENT THE VERY BIASED SCIENTIFIC RESULTS YOU INADVERTENTLY MENTION.

NOT TO MENTION THE LAST QUESTION.
im sorry, this one is absolutely retarded and it is plain to see it is just meant to throw off the discussion.

Was there a "Jesus" or "God" anywhere in the results of any experiments that are still acceptable today?

WTF.. LIKE..... WTFFFF??? what exactly does this mean. ill give u a chance to reword it so its english. Jesus christos.

Some things I say are opinionated. These things are normally prefaced by "I think" or "I think that". Some things I say are not opinionated, like my disproof of your previous argument for God. None of my arguments were personal. Just like in Krass' book some of what he wrote concerning the implications of his scientific results was opinionated but his science and the results he obtained were not.

Beause there is no real proof for God or religion anytime someone mentions anything about religion it is opinionated. Even saying God does not exist is slightly opinionated in the same way I say bluesclues is not Jesus or Harry Potter is not a documentary in a parallel universe. There is no definitive evide against it but there is no reason to believe it is true. Also, there is no added benefit to believing it to be true and it has no significance in the real world so I choose to assume it false.

This is similar to some scientific assumptions made. I shall assume it true and continue to build upon it until something prooves otherwise.

But please, keep those weak arguments coming.

in the end herre's what it all boils down too. confusion. here he is offering to settle. he is saying.. the positive or the negative cannot be proven.

what a clown. of course it cant be proven as of YET lets just say. because science has not the means to prove the positive as YET. and of course you cant prove a negative.

BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE TOPICCC!!!!
the topic was on REASONING, and that REASONINNGGG, can function as EVIDENCE, and be used to generate FACTUAL ASSUMPTIONS. which LATER ON can be demonstrated as having been the supporting or foundational part of a modern VIEW!

WEEE WERE NOT DISCUSSIING EVIDENCE BECAUSE EVERY IDIOT KNOWS WE CANT DO THATTTT!!


THIS IS A REASONING DISCUSSION.

so as far as im concerned.. u are not even taking the time to properly read posters responses. and talking up ur pie hole.

you can judge me for saying pie hole as well.

[bluesclues]

and to put the final nail in the coffin. so u have absolutely no wiggle room do you remember this post... in response to your statement about the definition of faith?? here was my response

try it without redefining the dictionary meaning of the words being used lol. i am sure that that is not the definition of faith.

faith is still what a scientist uses to perform an experiment. he must have some measure of faith that the experiment will be successful. but all before the actual successful result he is having pride in his own gullibility? lol

Faith

noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

I meant faith in this context
i.e. "Faith without reason/proof"
Happy?

Scientists have reason to have faith. They don't just start an experiment willy nilly. But anyway, I'm getting to your post now.

if we stick with english, though there may not be the most apparent evidence. there surely is a reason. and the reason exposes us to evidence little by little. it also depends on our ability to notice, the evidence.

in case u forgot, scientific experiments begin with a theory, a hypothesis and then the means to test the hypothesis is devised. when that is done, the experiment is documented and it's results logged.

so, the topic was pointed out to focus on reasoning a long time ago, as tangible evidence is a non sequitur request. meaning it is a request formed out of absolute illogical thinking.

u can continue to pretend we were talking about evidence all along and not reasoning.

[bluesclues]

feeliin hungry, but not for food. feeling thirsty, but not for anything to drink. feelin to go to the beach, but not to bathe. feelin to go to the club, but not to dance. what is this empty feeling? what must i fill? what can i buy? where can i go? perhaps a woman will fill it. but no, she is not enough, the hole still there. perhaps another woman, or 3 or 4 or 5 will fill it. perhaps a new car, a bigger house will fill it. but no. none filled it. for even with the big house and new car the hole was there.

every time u fill d hole the hole still there somewhere else. well u see. to fill the hole u hadda dig a hole to fill the next hole.wah yuh does need is the Father to link you some extra soil.

enjoy allyuh sunday folks. bluesclues out.

[Slartibartfast]

the world's greatest inventions have come from men who believed in God. men who were able to keep their faith and their scientific process separate, producing pure scientific theory even though they believe in a sentient creator.

Thank you. This is exactly my point. Religion and God had no impact on scientific outcomes of the work these guys did because they were held separate from eachother.

That means, since religion and God had no impact on their work, it could have been acheived without religion or God. A good example of this is how Krauss (an atheist) is building upon and expanding on the work of Lemaître. As different as their world views are, they agree on the science because good science is independent of bias and prejudice.

I almost forgot, two thing that separates science and religion are consistency and clarity. You and Habit use one book that has been around for almost 2 thousand years and still can't agree on what it says. Yet Lemaître and Krauss who are polar opposites can agree on scienctific theories that have been around for less than a century.

Anyway. I'm busy for the rest of today and this argument seems to have degraded into just finger pointing.

If you guys are up for it, put forth your arguments that definitively prove God is real or absolutely must exist and I will point out where your fallacies are. It would be in everyone's best interest if we keep the argument as focused as possible because I will like to address all concerns. A lot of side arguments have been raised over the past few days that I was not able to address for fear of going too far off topic.

If one of you want to keep a list of what you will like me to address afterwards that will be fine as well. I would love to address all concerns as long as they are addressed one at a time up to conclusion.

Once again blues, thanks for backing up my point. Feel free to check back when your father finish filling your holes

[zoom rader]

Let's face it Jesus was really a Hindu, all his teachings are hindu based.
Rising from the dead is hindu reincarnation.
Trinity is hindu.
Praying to a cross is hindu.
Praying for sins is hindu.
Drinking of Jesus blood is hindu
Jesus missing years was spent in India learning from the hindus.

Then again you have all these so-called Christians that are ignorant of Hindus

[bluesclues]

the world's greatest inventions have come from men who believed in God. men who were able to keep their faith and their scientific process separate, producing pure scientific theory even though they believe in a sentient creator.

Thank you. This is exactly my point. Religion and God had no impact on scientific outcomes of the work these guys did because they were held separate from eachother.

That means, since religion and God had no impact on their work, it could have been acheived without religion or God. A good example of this is how Krauss (an atheist) is building upon and expanding on the work of Lemaître. As different as their world views are, they agree on the science because good science is independent of bias and prejudice.

besides the point. the further point is that EVEN THOUGH they kept both seperate. their discoveries and statements turn out to match or perfectly parallel directly relative statements from ancient times.

i mean if it was garbage, then scientific discoveries would basically disprove anything the ancients said as just guessing. but instead, they find that when they do get down to the bottom of it all, the ancients were right from the beginning.

so the point is when that happens instead of discrediting the ancients, it upholds and supports them. but it works both ways too. many scholars have used religious scriptures to make scientific predictions that when pursued were discovered to be accurate. analysis of the bible and Quran for scientific discovery was a mainstay of many scholars who also made very meaningful contributions to society.

[Slartibartfast]

No it doesn't. You would see that it doesn't once you start reading the Bible.

Genesis Timeline -
1. Heavens and Earth created first (interpret to mean our planet and the rest of the empty space in the universe. Correct me if I am wrong.) Gen1:1
2. God said let there be light (This light is daylight according to the next verse where he divided this light from the darkness) Gen1:3
3. God created night and day (without a Sun or any mention of the Earth's rotation) Gen1:4-5
4. God then created the firmament (what does this mean exactly? It seems to have changed meaning a lot over the years) Gen 1:6
5. God created plant life Gen 1:11
6. God then created the stars. Gen1:14
7. God created the Sun and the Moon. (This is confusing. He put the Sun in the sky after he created night and day. But night and day is dependent on the position of the Sun) Gen 1:16
8. God created animals Gen 1:20-25
9. God Created Man Gen 1:26-27

Summary of Genesis Timeline
Earth --> Daylight ---> Night --> Firmament??? --> Plant Life (non-animal life) --> Other Stars --> Sun and Moon --> Animal life --> Man

Big Bang Theory Timeline
(only taking into account what is mentioned in Genesis for easier comparison)
Big Bang --> Other Stars --> Our Sun, Daylight --> Earth, Moon, Day and Night --> Non-animal life --> Animal life

And that's just the first page of the bible.

EDIT: I used the KJV bible. If there is a different version of the bible that you rather just let me know.

[York]

the bible is flawed, not preserved, tampered with...

[metalgear2095]

the bible is flawed, not preserved, tampered with...

The Koran is a story book inspired by the bible.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

[Habit7]

No it doesn't. You would see that it doesn't once you start reading the Bible.

Genesis Timeline -
1. Heavens and Earth created first (interpret to mean our planet and the rest of the empty space in the universe. Correct me if I am wrong.) Gen1:1
2. God said let there be light (This light is daylight according to the next verse where he divided this light from the darkness) Gen1:3
3. God created night and day (without a Sun or any mention of the Earth's rotation) Gen1:4-5
4. God then created the firmament (what does this mean exactly? It seems to have changed meaning a lot over the years) Gen 1:6
5. God created plant life Gen 1:11
6. God then created the stars. Gen1:14
7. God created the Sun and the Moon. (This is confusing. He put the Sun in the sky after he created night and day. But night and day is dependent on the position of the Sun) Gen 1:16
8. God created animals Gen 1:20-25
9. God Created Man Gen 1:26-27

Summary of Genesis Timeline
Earth --> Daylight ---> Night --> Firmament??? --> Plant Life (non-animal life) --> Other Stars --> Sun and Moon --> Animal life --> Man

Big Bang Theory Timeline
(only taking into account what is mentioned in Genesis for easier comparison)
Big Bang --> Other Stars --> Our Sun, Daylight --> Earth, Moon, Day and Night --> Non-animal life --> Animal life

And that's just the first page of the bible.

EDIT: I used the KJV bible. If there is a different version of the bible that you rather just let me know.

You made this argument when I ask you to give the most glaring inconsistency in Bible.

Genesis 1:3 states the God is the creator of light. 2 Corinthians 4:6 reemphasizes that God is the source of light. Revelation 21:23 refers to in the future when God creates a new heaven and Earth, that God will be the source of light and that there will be no need for heavenly bodies to light our world. Thus from day 1 He was the source of light, but on day 4 "God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day." Genesis 1:17-19. But after God destroys the world in judgement and creates a new world, He will again be its source of light.

You said if it was explained you will move on...I guess you are still to move on.

but then again...

I don't mind carrying on arguments on a thread every now and then but I don't have time to research and find all the biblical "answers" to my questions.

Well I do have time but it's pointless for me as the answers are mostly sidesteps, unverified quotations, or just plain ole bull$h!t to me. The reason I converse with you is because I am incapable of understanding the scriptures the way you do as my logic is constantly biased by reality.

[bluesclues]

Genesis Timeline -
1. Heavens and Earth created first (Earth here refers to earth as in matter, particles.) Gen1:1

the hint is in that is was formless and void. so what kind of earth has no form? particles in chaos. so when God created the universe, he also created matter

2. God said let there be light (this light is light. not tied to any body. just the establishing that light will be a new function in this universe of darkness and chaos which was just created) Gen1:3
3. God created night and day (again, a declaration, he is naming things which he has decided will be) Gen1:4-5
4. God then created the firmament (a definition between waters. we have 'waters of the deep' which refers to the space vaccuum. and we have waters under the firmament which he later informs us he names seas. also defining what earth was when he used earth to describe the dry land between the seas. so earth, was not a name for the planet. earth is matter when formless and chaotic but when grouped and given form produced land masses that we walk on and build with) Gen 1:6
5. God created plant life Gen 1:11
6. God then created the stars. Gen1:14
7. God created the Sun and the Moon. (not so confusing when all he did before was declare the definition between night and day) Gen 1:16
8. God created animals Gen 1:20-25
9. God Created Man Gen 1:26-27

Summary of Genesis Timeline
dark Universe and matter --> light/energy ---> Firmament assists in defining the form --> Plant Life (non-animal life) --> Other Stars --> Sun and Moon --> Animal life --> Man

Big Bang Theory Timeline
(only taking into account what is mentioned in Genesis for easier comparison)
dark universe --> 1 singular dense mass of matter --> unknown catalyst cause dense mass to explode--> matter scatters accross the vaccuum at high velocities --> settles to the order of the planets and solar systems in rotation for unknown reason --> light was just always around waiting to be activated, it has no maker, it just exists.(energy cannot be created nor destroyed)

And that's just the first page of the bible.

EDIT: I used the KJV bible. If there is a different version of the bible that you rather just let me know.

now besides the 2 major gaps in the scientific big bang theory the beginnings are the same.

at the start we have a dark universe, with 'dark matter', light is introduced and matter is scattered throughout the universe(chaos). eventually chaos starts turning to order and planets and solar systems functioning on specific rules of physics etc. the thing about firmament and why many may not get it is that it can be used to denominate any kind of border.

eg.. we know a fence is a border, its a physical border. what about an electric collar for dogs, when the dog goes too close the boundary he gets a zap. that could also be a firmament. or defining interactions between 2 similar states of existence. this is also a firmament and the firmament in question. setting rules like, is sugar allowed to mix with water, and defining that oil cannot mix with water, and such. defining the vaccuum of space shares some properties with normal drinking water but the 2 are seperate and defined of eachother. in otherwords, they are prevented from mixing. thus the firmament must be an attribution of the earth's atmosphere which divides the waters of vaccuum from those of the seas of the earth. basically ensuring that we know its 2 type of waters we talking about. and again earth there is not the same as what we call the name of our planet. its more in the sense of if you have a box of dirt.. u have a box of 'earth'.

[York]

the bible is flawed, not preserved, tampered with...

The Koran is a story book inspired by the bible.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

It is what it is. The Word of God, first person.

At least it has been preserved in Arabic, the original Language in which it was revealed, word for word, letter for letter.

If you read both, you will conclude that the bible has been altered but I'm certain you've only read one.

[MG Man]

I can poop in a container and preserve it in the fridge.....but after a thousand years, it will still be poop
btw, there were multiple versions of the koran after the crazy man died...do some research and you'll see

[York]

You talking poop...

[MG Man]

where did you see me quote the koran?

[Slartibartfast]

Habit, it seems as though you once again misinterpreted my argument. Bluesclues is arguing that scientific theories are parallel and consistent with the Bible. I am arguing that they are not. You are talking about God being the source of light (Also, I believe back then I was talking about the bible contradicting itself as I thought that would be a better challenge for me. Right now I'm arguing about religion contradicting science). I fail to see the relevance of that in this argument. If you will like to start a new argument please do so by stating your premises and conclusions as well as any necessary proof. Also, thank you for quoting me.

Bluesclues, I don't understand how your argument helps prove the point

their discoveries and statements turn out to match or perfectly parallel directly relative statements from ancient times.

I have shown, as simply as I can, how a scientific theory does not match a teaching from the bible. You respond with a timeline also showing that the scientific theory does not match what is taught in the bible. We can't both be arguing against you.

Most simply put;
The creation story of the bible says the earth was created before the sun and all other stars

Most widely accepted scientific theory on the subject states that a lot of the stars were created before our sun and that our sun was created before the Earth.

Blues, even you don't believe the bible is true.

matter is scattered throughout the universe(chaos). eventually chaos starts turning to order and planets and solar systems functioning on specific rules of physics etc.

Even you don't believe the earth was created first. Why do you still insist that you believe in the bible?


Do you see the direct contradiction here?

[Slartibartfast]

You talking poop...

This is by far the most convincing argument you have made so far. I shall keep this message unchanged so that future readers of this thread can know what you are about.

[zoom rader]

I can poop in a container and preserve it in the fridge.....but after a thousand years, it will still be poop
btw, there were multiple versions of the koran after the crazy man died...do some research and you'll see

After a 1000 years they will be able to examine your poop and they will know you had bodi for breakfast. They will not know the price you paid for dat bodi doh

[MG Man]

they will know I had bacon for breakfast, accuse my poop of being an infidel, and behead it

[zoom rader]

they will know I had bacon for breakfast, accuse my poop of being an infidel, and behead it

Nah they would you were a Jew

[bluesclues]

Habit, it seems as though you once again misinterpreted my argument. Bluesclues is arguing that scientific theories are parallel and consistent with the Bible. I am arguing that they are not. You are talking about God being the source of light (Also, I believe back then I was talking about the bible contradicting itself as I thought that would be a better challenge for me. Right now I'm arguing about religion contradicting science). I fail to see the relevance of that in this argument. If you will like to start a new argument please do so by stating your premises and conclusions as well as any necessary proof. Also, thank you for quoting me.

Bluesclues, I don't understand how your argument helps prove the point

their discoveries and statements turn out to match or perfectly parallel directly relative statements from ancient times.

I have shown, as simply as I can, how a scientific theory does not match a teaching from the bible. You respond with a timeline also showing that the scientific theory does not match what is taught in the bible. We can't both be arguing against you.

Most simply put;
The creation story of the bible says the earth was created before the sun and all other stars

Most widely accepted scientific theory on the subject states that a lot of the stars were created before our sun and that our sun was created before the Earth.

Blues, even you don't believe the bible is true.

matter is scattered throughout the universe(chaos). eventually chaos starts turning to order and planets and solar systems functioning on specific rules of physics etc.

Even you don't believe the earth was created first. Why do you still insist that you believe in the bible?


Do you see the direct contradiction here?

what earth are u talking about? both earth and water are symbolic words in genesis.

altho it is indeed a God of the gaps explanation, the only real differences i see is that the scientific theory doesnt attribute the major catalysts as sentient. while the biblical metamorph statements do. there is more that can be gleaned from genesis opening statements that well match up and describe the order of creation of the universe.

and tbh i think id rather just break down genesis the way i see it statement by statement so the whole idea can be pitched. when im not on mobile.

the full mystical idea is that these words will always be able to be superimposed over real scientific process whether you shift your perspective or not. the microcosm and macrocosm relationship exists and permeates throughout this universe.

the reason i worded the statement like that was to suit you actually. i recognize the sentient creator set the laws(firmament) which govern how matter and forces behave and so it is by his will planets and solar systems formed after a period of chaos.

you do recognize that if chaos exists in a vaccuum, that umm its always and forever going to be chaos unless something sentient intervenes and sets it on a path of order right? order is an attribute of sentience. so a once chaotic universe forming to order doesnt happen without the catalyst being sentient. and thats why the big bang theory as it currently is does not perfectly match up with the order of events promoted in the creation story of religions.

essentially its not really God of the gaps of the past. where man eventually discovered some things could be explained away by an unconscious catalyst. however, this is not the case. logically, in this situation, the requirement demands a sentient actor. one who created a contrast from death, darkness and chaos.

lastly lets bare in mind that my religious schooling was only up to the age of 12. i did not take the words of preachers. i always believed in aliens. and life on other planets lets say.

the genesis story in my view speaks about the creation of a planet yes. but in a way that can represent any planet anywhere in the universe that was designed to harbour life. so he gathered matter and made planets with a firmament of laws to keep them obeying the order. there is no contradiction.

[York]

You talking poop...

This is by far the most convincing argument you have made so far. I shall keep this message unchanged so that future readers of this thread can know what you are about.

MG, you talking but this man preserving poop yes. And so you shall slarti.

[Slartibartfast]

There wasn't much in my argument that you actually replied directly to so there isn't much that I can reply to you. Your breakdown however should address that so I look forward to it.

Now you may realise that I have been staying away from your discussions on what is meant by the word "firmament". I cant find source that corroborates your interpretation of the word. I have also never seen it in a scientific context (it may be there but I just never saw it). For these reasons I am not contributing to any discussion regarding the "firmament" at this time. After we hash out this first issue, we may talk about it more when I have a chance to read up on it if that's ok with you. Don't want you to feel like I'm sidestepping it. Just putting it on hold for now. Is there anywhere that you can point me to that concurs with your views?

[bluesclues]

firmament translated from the hebrew raqia has found many translations in modern english, with various bible translations choosing different words based on the particular scribe who did the translation's perception of the most suiting english word to replace the hebrew intention.

vault, divider, law, fixed/fixture, dome, sky are just some of the possible translations. but based on its use in the genesis passages, we can gain the meaning from the context. on the baseline, this particular firmament was used as a divider, and was fixed to maintain that division, denoting that a law was set. the law's intention is to keep two different types of 'water' from mixing. one metaphorical water, and one literal water. the metaphorical water, is in the reference to the spirit passing over the waters of the 'deep'. showing all of space to be metaphorized as a sea of water.

a firmament would also exist between reality and GOD's realm. a barrier that may not even be physical. for example, a firmament could also be a puzzle designed that you can never figure it out. thus keeping out any unworthy who are unable to solve the puzzle. anything that acts as a border of restriction.

[rspann]

Bluesclues ,you introduced the concept of a law earlier in your discussion,and it seems that is your interpretation,you are now trying to use a hebrew word that has no meaning that can be translated as "law"(as a matter of fact when I searched I came up with the same meanings you found,except law) and you are now trying to slip it past us to make us believe that one of the meanings is law. Naughty boy!

[York]

No it doesn't. You would see that it doesn't once you start reading the Bible.

Genesis Timeline -
1. Heavens and Earth created first (interpret to mean our planet and the rest of the empty space in the universe. Correct me if I am wrong.) Gen1:1
2. God said let there be light (This light is daylight according to the next verse where he divided this light from the darkness) Gen1:3
3. God created night and day (without a Sun or any mention of the Earth's rotation) Gen1:4-5
4. God then created the firmament (what does this mean exactly? It seems to have changed meaning a lot over the years) Gen 1:6
5. God created plant life Gen 1:11
6. God then created the stars. Gen1:14
7. God created the Sun and the Moon. (This is confusing. He put the Sun in the sky after he created night and day. But night and day is dependent on the position of the Sun) Gen 1:16
8. God created animals Gen 1:20-25
9. God Created Man Gen 1:26-27

Summary of Genesis Timeline
Earth --> Daylight ---> Night --> Firmament??? --> Plant Life (non-animal life) --> Other Stars --> Sun and Moon --> Animal life --> Man

Big Bang Theory Timeline
(only taking into account what is mentioned in Genesis for easier comparison)
Big Bang --> Other Stars --> Our Sun, Daylight --> Earth, Moon, Day and Night --> Non-animal life --> Animal life

And that's just the first page of the bible.

EDIT: I used the KJV bible. If there is a different version of the bible that you rather just let me know.

Science concludes that the Universe is 13.7 billion years and the Earth is 4.54 billion years.

God says in the Quran that he created the Universe (heavens) in 6 days and the Earth in 2 out of those 6 days. These are not days but periods of time. It is exactly 1/3. Kinda accurate that 4.54 / 13.7 = 1/3!!!

Tell me how could an illiterate man 1400 yrs ago know this?

[York]

Qur'an chapter Fussilat (41) verses 9-12.

The creation of the heavens commenced but was not completed, the earth was created and completed when the heavens was still smoke, then the creation of the heavens was completed.

So technically the earth was created first, before the heavens, when we look at completion.

[Habit7]

Tell me how could an illiterate man 1400 yrs ago know this?

This same guy?

Quran 18:83-86 And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: "I shall recite to you something of his story." Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

Sunan Abu Dawud 3991—Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water.

[bluesclues]

Bluesclues ,you introduced the concept of a law earlier in your discussion,and it seems that is your interpretation,you are now trying to use a hebrew word that has no meaning that can be translated as "law"(as a matter of fact when I searched I came up with the same meanings you found,except law) and you are now trying to slip it past us to make us believe that one of the meanings is law. Naughty boy!

nah not slipping it past. u can get that usage from the context. i tried to explain how the context makes law a relevant application or attendant to the firmament. when the firmament is established, it is a set rule for division. and rule = law, protocol etc. u can get that also from the perspective of the restriction taking place. restriction, is a boundary, a vault is a closed boundary, like a prison, meaning something is locked inside, or locked in a set fashion. these suggest dominance over the items being restricted, enclosed or otherwise cordoned off from a place or even a behaviour. i see firmament being rightfully used in any such case whether physical or intangible. such as say you give someone a pill that shuts off all angry or aggressive responses, i could refer to that as setting a firmament that restricts that behaviour.