Evolution compatible with Creation?

Originally posted by ewokdisco
in theory,everything IS created. after all,we all came from the very same source: the big bang. atheists are usually rebelling against a strict religious upbringing and are thus too blinkered.

Excellent point my friend.
I can already hear the debate:

creationist: Who created the Big Bang?
evolutionist: Nobody! It was creat-ed, by itse- - DOH
creationist: Gotcha!

While I do believe in the evolvement of species, I also believe Man was created from resources that were available in an already evolving Earth.

The funny thing is that it is religion that has evolved over the years.

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by ewokdisco
in theory,everything IS created. after all,we all came from the very same source: the big bang. atheists are usually rebelling against a strict religious upbringing and are thus too blinkered.

Excellent point my friend.
I can already hear the debate:

creationist: Who created the Big Bang?
evolutionist: Nobody! It was creat-ed, by itse- - DOH

creationist: Gotcha!

While I do believe in the evolvement of species, I also believe Man was created from resources that were available in an already evolving Earth.

The funny thing is that it is religion that has evolved over the years.

We're not making any claim as to how the big bang happened. We don't do it, because as humans, we don't have any evidence that would let us make claims. We just don't know!

You on the other hand are using the god of the gaps and fill a lack of knowledge with a mythical/magic creature...which is exactly what cavemen did when it comes to fire. You'd think people would stop being ignorant after a while, after all, we live in the 21st century and not 250,000BC anymore. You present ZERO evidence for your claim apart from blind faith...

As for religion evolving...no, that's the whole thing about religion, it sticks to its doctrines. Take Bluejay for example, he believes men has only been on earth for 6035 years...even if we KNOW that's not the case. He's ignoring the entire bronze ages for example.

Why does he do that? Simple really, he's not willing to accept reality if it contradicts doctrines that are thousands of years old!! Ignorance at its best

Believing in evolution is contradictory to believing in Christianity for the following reason: Christianity teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old. Evolution teaches that it happens over the course of millions of years. 1 million years is longer then 6,000 years. We can all agree on that. We know for a fact that the earth is billions of years old because of geological studies. So if Christians accepted evolution then they would deny the earth is 6,000 years old, or they would have to prove otherwise that evolution happens overnight, and we know for a fact that that doesnt happen.

reply to post by Alxandro


Nothing!
www.youtube.com...
Follow the link for the lulz.
I would also like to counter with what created God? Nothing?

reply to post by Secularist

Christianity teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old

Then the divisions of Christianity that teach this are wrong.
Young earth creationism is wrong, not supported by even the most basic fossil records.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Secularist

 

Christianity teaches that the earth is 6,000 years old

Then the divisions of Christianity that teach this are wrong.
Young earth creationism is wrong, not supported by even the most basic fossil records.

Just like evidence fully supports the fact that mankind has been on earth longer than 6035 years...yet you still argue in favour of that ridiculous 6035 year blunder.

The Bible dates not the Earth at 6,000 years, but Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago. Now we know the Earth is much older we have fossils we have proof. However when it comes to evolution we have failed to find a "missing link" between us and what was before us. The reason why is that there is no evolution for us we were created in the likeness of God and as such we o not "evolve" just as God does not "evolve". That being said though in my opinion evolution and creation are indeed compatible.

Animals can and do evolve and there is nothing wrong with that God created them that way. He however did not create us that way we were made to be in the image of God and we are never going to "evolve" out of that image, what would that make us? An evolved, improved image of God? I don't think so!!!

However there is no argument from me about the evolution of animals, but WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!!!!!

Even the humanoid like creatures before us may indeed have evolved from earlier ancestors, we though were created, not evolved.

So, yeah evolution and creation can coexist, the first step in doing so however, is to realize that humans are not animals.

reply to post by Jermicide


Missing link, huh?

You totally underestimate the fossil record if you believe there's any doubt about us having a common ancestors with apes

reply to post by edmc^2


Ofcourse it is compatible.

I'm shocked that people are using evolution to somehow disprove creation.

That is just stupid.

Evolution means change.

Can anyone tell me one thing in the universe which doesn't changes, except the laws??

Everything evolves, but the laws hasn't evolved, the laws have been the same since we can remember.

It is like a video game, do you want a static video game that doesn't change? That would be boring as F.. In video games you have bots (which are automatic systems), you have a changing world based on its programming, changing graphics, based on programming, everything changes.

I mean for god sakes, we have programmed evolution, and you can observe it through the graphics.

If we can program it, how can GOD not program it.

ZZZ

People act so stupid sometimes, it just is darn laughable.

reply to post by WfknSmth




I like your way of thinking and I agree with a lot of what you said. Thanks for sharing your wisdom. It looks like you’ve covered a lot of grounds in just a short post.

Particularly this point:

Creationism on the other hand is a religious motivated belief and directly rejects scientific research, bares arguments or facts and even contradicts known facts (like in this fundamentalist young-earth fantasy).
Its religion - and no, quoting the bible is no scientific approach.”

Totally agree.

But I submit to you though that the Bible is compatible with Creation and Creation is compatible with true Science (as opposed to pseudo-science) and that Science is compatible with the Bible.
That is, even though the Bible is not scientific but when it touches true science (or vise-versa) it is in agreement.

I’ll state my case later.

But for now, to show you why I agree with you. Notice the following:

Based on the facts from the Little Rock trial, Creationism (or Creation Science / Scientific Creationism) as defined in the Little Rock, Arkansas Law has two main tenets which I believe and agree are against true science and above all contradictory to the scriptures.

Two main tenets of Creationism (aka Creation Science):

1) That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.
2) That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

Because of these (and other) mistakes, as a Christian witness of God I reject it.

As for ID (Intelligent Design) I also reject it for the simple reason that it goes against the principle of Creation.

That is, ID promotes the idea that there’s Intelligence in design but without a designer.

Here’s a quote from Writer Claudia Wallis. She stated that intelligent design proponents are:

“careful not to bring God into the discussion.”

Newsweek magazine commented that:

“I.D. has nothing to say on the existence and identity of the designer.”

- Reason for it (based on my study): so that it can be introduced and accepted as a school curriculum.

So now that you know where I stand may present the facts of Biblical Creation in light of factual science. Please feel free to critique it (as I know that you will make an honest observation). If it’s in error by all means please let me know where so that I can further study it.

Case1: Let me start with the ‘beginning’.

According to science and scientific data based on mathematical probability there are 10 major stages needed for life on earth to occur. If any of the events is out of sequence life on earth will not be possible.

The order of events is as follows:

(1) A beginning.
(2) A primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water.
(3) Light.
(4) An expanse or atmosphere.
(5) Large areas of dry land.
(6) Land plants.
(7) Sun, moon and stars discernible in the atmosphere and seasons beginning.
(8) Sea and flying creatures.
(9) Wild and tame beasts, mammals.
(10) Man.

Here’s how the Book of Genesis describe how life came to be.

> Planets (earth), sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years ago.
> Watery earth was formless.
> Next is the preparation of earth to be inhabited.

Day 1: Light (of some sort) came to be on a formless watery earth.
Day 2: Separation between waters above and waters below, expanse (sky) appeared.
Day 3: Dry land, vegetation, organism appeared and water basins formed (seas).
Day 4: Lights from the luminaries became discernible from earth. Days and seasons.
Day 5: Animals of every sort appeared; fish, flying creatures, sea monsters –possibly dinosaurs.
Day 6: More animals -wild and domestic and finally man was created.
Day 7: Creation stopped.

Q1: Were these just a coincidence?

Fact: It is well establish that the Bible is one if not the oldest (complete) book in existence. Scholars and researchers say that it was completed about 2000 years ago. But the book of Genesis was written way before that. In fact according to calculations and evidence it was written around 1513 B.C.E.

Now consider the implication of this:

Q2: How did Moses—thousands of years ago—get that order correct since only in the 20th century era we learned of these stages?

Q3: Is it possible that he came up with on his own without the aid of science or scientific instruments?

Q4: Did he somehow copy it from somebody with the knowledge of these events?

Then there’s this:

If science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.

Q5: What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order?

According to one calculation: the same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order.

The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

Q6: SO where did Moses get the information then if not from someone who has knowledge of time and events?

Only one conclusion: his source of information was no other that the Creator and Designer himself.

“In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen 1:1) as the scripture elegantly starts it.

Don’t you think so?

Now, notice how one well known geologist said about the Book of Genesis.

Wallace Pratt commented:

“If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.”

He also noted that based on his observation, the order as described in Genesis for the origin of the oceans and the emergence of land, as well as for the appearance of marine life, birds, and mammals, is in essence the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

Side note:
 The word “DAY” in Genesis does NOT mean a literal 24 hour day but a long period of time. Thus it can be called a “Creative Day”.

 According to latest calculations, the earth is about 4 byo. The book of Genesis does not DISAGREE with this finding.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

This is just one sampling of the total agreement of the Bible when it touches true science. I’ll submit some more cases later.

As for evolution – go figure. One thing for sure it’s not compatible with Biblical Creation.

Thanks
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

Here’s how the Book of Genesis describe how life came to be. > Planets (earth), sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years ago.

Certain people around here can't and won't see this, maybe you will be able to reason with them, I couldn't.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Here’s how the Book of Genesis describe how life came to be. > Planets (earth), sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years ago.

Certain people around here can't and won't see this, maybe you will be able to reason with them, I couldn't.

You didn't try reasoning with anyone. You made a claim, and some poster took a long time compiling a very long detailed post proving you wrong.

You're "reasoning" was limited to calling him a troll and threatening to ignore people. You refused to comment on even one of the arguments...and every single one of them consisted of bible quotes.

I'm not gonna steal that guy's work and copy/paste his post here, but I'm sure he'll do it himself eventually. For those interested, it's in BlueJay's latest thread on the last 2 pages.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Here’s how the Book of Genesis describe how life came to be. > Planets (earth), sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years ago.

Certain people around here can't and won't see this, maybe you will be able to reason with them, I couldn't.

Apologistic reinterpretation . . .
You don't like what the bible says, so you ignore it and say it says what you like.

What part of the account of this, from the account of the fourth day, is so hard to understand?

16. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

The bible does not say, - "hey, I meant to write this in for day one, but I forgot, so I'll just slip it in here instead."

The bible does not say, - "well, you know those great "lights, well they were actually already made, but they just became visable on the fourth day, but I'll say they were made then because it doesn't matter what I say, those "Christians" from the future won't read the words anyway."

Blue_Jay, you mercilously contort the words of the bible to make them fit with science in some respects, but then totally reject science in other respects.

Are you trying to buy a ticket to heaven with such perverted "logic"?

reply to post by Kailassa


Man, you people keep bouncing all over.

I'll repost my Q here just in case you don't want to answer it in Blue_Jays' thread.

here it is:

This is interesting, evolutionists teaching the Bible to a Christian. Interesting indeed.
Anyway I'd like to chime in since this is one my favorite Bible subjects and science subjects. I would like to help you guys if you don't mind cuz, I see some mistakes in your understanding of the Bible.

Here let me quote you.
You said:

If you don't know your Bible, you may believe the created light was the sun, but this account clearly states the sun was not created until day four. So this is some magical light which separates day from night, and which does not come from the sun. I guess God must have set up some ginormous floodlights.

So just to be clear - you believe that the SUN/MOON were created on the 4th day, correct?


I think madness said the same thing. But anyway, before I explain where you made mistakes, let me please ask you three (Kaila, madness, Mrxyz) this question:

What is the difference between the word "LIGHT" in v3 and v14?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by Jermicide

Originally postet by Jermicide
The Bible dates not the Earth at 6,000 years, but Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago.

Nope.
The oldest homo sapiens fossils found are estimated to be 160,000 years old.
So the holy book is about one hundred thousand years wrong.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0611_030611_earliesthuman .html

Originally postet by Jermicide
However when it comes to evolution we have failed to find a "missing link" between us and what was before us.

We have failed YET to find THE missing link... but the gap is slowly closing:
news.nationalgeographic.co m/news/2010/04/100408-fossils-australopithecus-sediba-missing-link-new-species-human/

Regarding Oozyism:
You compare evolution to scripted simulations in video games? really? you must be trolling, plus your avatar says "stop racism against islam!" which is like saying "stop smoking beer!"

Originally postet by edmc^2
But I submit to you though that the Bible is compatible with Creation and Creation is compatible with true Science (as opposed to pseudo-science) and that Science is compatible with the Bible. That is, even though the Bible is not scientific but when it touches true science (or vise-versa) it is in agreement.

As stated in my first post Creationism is not compatible to Science, sorry.
If the Bible and "true Science" match, as you pointet out, its coincidence at best.

Regarding Moses: I really dont know. I dont believe in his story and those numbers seem kind of fishy to me BUT - its possible for me, that some "information" about earths early times were somehow taught to ancient civilizations... we just dont know.
Agyptians and Mayans for example had very impressive astrological knowledge. So why shouldnt some of this knowledge found its way into early christian scripture?

Originally postet by edmc^2
Fact: It is well establish that the Bible is one if not the oldest (complete) book in existence. Scholars and researchers say that it was completed about 2000 years ago. But the book of Genesis was written way before that. In fact according to calculations and evidence it was written around 1513 B.C.E.

The oldest book per definition is an etruscian book, currently dated 600 B.C. though its pretty short.
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=23&num=5&id=357
The early chinese I Ching scriptures and its Chujian Zhouyi are dated around the 4th to early 3rd century B.C.
The oldest christian Bible is only 1600 years old, called "The Codex Sinaiticus" and you can actually read it online here:
www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Being an atheist or evolutionist or whatever name someone calls himself (or is named by others) says nothing about his/her ability to read the bible or any other book...
"We" are just not so likely to jump to conclusions... we want to know where others are satisfied with belief.
I respect your freedom to exercise religion and to believe whatever you want to - as long as you, if you whish to debate with me, respect the scientific method.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Biblical Creation is difficult to explain. Whatever stand point you come from. Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. They would explain it differently. If you're trying to present that Christianity is truth then I can surely tell that would not work.
The Seven Days of Creation

In the essay, "In the Beginning," I presented a series of ancient myths in which ancients believed in a primeval chaos. In this series, I continue some of these myths in which order arose from an earlier chaos. This list is by no means exhaustive. Creation myths were common to ancient cultures. What we see here is how close the Hebrew creation myths conform to their pagan cousins then to anything that resembles scientific truth.

Before Creation

From a scientific point of view, Genesis 1:1-2 tells of a preexistent universe prior to creation. 1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2)

The Elements of Creation

Genesis 1:2 reflects an ancient belief that all things are composed of some combination of earth, fire, air and water. The four cosmic elements were not seen as mere building blocks, they were believed to control the very nature of man and matter. The four elements laid the base for alchemy and medicine until the 17th century. To return to Gen. 1:2, from the elemental point of view, it is saying that before creation, there was no earth and no fire; there was only air and water.

Creation Stories
Of course the Bible is similar to many other religious text that predates both the Jewish and Christian Bible.

The Bible's similarities with Egyptian, Greek and Babylonian mythology are too close to be a coincidence. The writers weren’t isolated from other cultures and they didn’t get their ideas by sitting on some mountaintop meditating with God; they borrowed ideas from their neighbor's creation myths. The technical term is called called syncretism.

Of course I'm using an Atheist site that is skeptical of the Christian version of the Bible.
I would like to explain the Jewish side now.
Pre Creation
Why did God fashion Man out of the Ground?

There are four layers of existence: Inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans. Each level takes the level of life which is below it and elevates it. A plant derives its nutrition from the ground, elevating the ground and incorporating it into a higher level of existence. The same is true of all the levels. One reason we were created from the ground is to remind us that we can constantly strive to elevate every aspect of existence, even the lowly dirt.

Creation of the World
Purpose of Creation
G-D's Image

We were created in G-d's image. The image of His vision. From a point before and beyond all things, G-d looked upon a moment in time to be and saw there a soul, distant from Him in a turbulent world, yet yearning to return to Him and His oneness. And He saw the pleasure He would have from this union. So He invested His infinite light into that finite image and became one with that image and in that image He created each one of us. As for that moment He saw, that was the moment now.

Created in the Divine Image

G-d displayed extraordinary love to us by assuring us that we continue to remain in His image even after sinning….

reply to post by MrXYZ


My point exactly, you just "don't know".
No one does, for that matter, not even science.
That would mean the truth has to be somewhere in the middle.

While it's true no one knows everything, its very possible that God may exist in the areas "you don't know" about, as well as in the areas you do know.

Creation and evolution actually have more in common than most people would like to think, but an "objective" person like yourself would never dare to admit it.

Case in point, your number of 6035.
You are trying to use a straight and linear unit of measurement to gauge something which is an exponential curve in time itself.

It doesn't work. It can't work.

It's like when an arrogant little brat of a child is so proud of himself because he just learned how to add 2 + 2, yet he doesn't have a clue about the existence of the fields of higher mathematics.

In other words, in the beginning, one day did not equal 24 hours as it does now. During the first day of creation, the universe was in chaos, as a result of having just experienced the big bang.

Fast forward a few billion years to that place in time that you would consider to be about 6035 years ago, and you basically find yourself very late in the day, of the Seventh Day of creation. That would be about the time, that time had actually begun to stabilize to what can now be considered linear time.

So, in a nutshell, just because we were created in God's image, doesn't mean our clocks tick the same.

reply to post by WfknSmth


Thank you for your candor, I appreciate your honest answers.

Can I ask you a quick question on Creationism:

As you've read in my reply, I don't accept Creationism also known as Creation Science for the reasons that I mentioned.

Q: what's your deffinition of Creation? Is it the same as "Creation Science -aka Creationism" or is it like how I define it. I'd like to know so that there's no confusion.

Here's my deffinition of Creation:

Creation - is the inference that all living things that appeared on earth can only be explained by the existence of a Creator, an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the basic kinds of life on the earth.

As for this statement:

If the Bible and "true Science" match, as you pointet out, its coincidence at best.

If it's a coincidence that the writer of Genesis got it right the first time, that would be an out of this world coincidence, would you agree?

A stagering probability of 1 in 3,628,800 chance to get it right. Do you know of any other book that have that kind of accuracy? Not bad for a "goat herder".

So where do you think Moses got the information? If we say from someone else other than the Creator himself. Then that person or persons can rival our time - did it without the aid of space flight.

Now, just think about the magnitude of what he wrote. This is just Genesis were talking about. He wrote the Pentateuch. His writership has been acknowledged by the Jews throughout their history, this section of the Bible being known by them as the Torah, or Law. Jesus and the Christian writers frequently speak of Moses as giving the Law. He is generally credited with writing the book of Job, also parts Psalm.

As for his authenticity, there's no doubt about it specially among Jews and Muslims and even among historians.
His early life in Egypt describes very well the conditions in Egypt in full detail - verifiable through archeology and history. His sojourn in the wilderness describes exactly the conditions of the time and area.

Although as you said

Agyptians and Mayans for example had very impressive astrological knowledge. So why shouldnt some of this knowledge found its way into early christian scripture?

none of thier knowledge can compare to Moses' knowledge of space, time and events:

Consider the Genesis account again:

Gen 1:14 “‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’

This event describes here is what geologist call "catatropism" where tremedous earth movement was involved in the formation of land areas.

Q: How could he know the process without studying it? Did he borrowed it or learned it from someone else? If yes who? The Egyptians? Doubtful, for it's only in the modern age where we learned this geological process.

Consider another example:

Job 26:7 says: "“[God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing.”

These text was written in the 15th century B.C.E. Moses already knew this thousand of years in advance, yet it was only in the 20th century we learned that the the earth is hanging upon nothing, when we sent spacecraft in to orbit - debunking the myths that it was sitting on something.

Q: How could he knew this? There's no record of any other 'old' book with this information. Where did he get the information? Some say alien . But what do you think?

So again the Bible, in relation to astronomy is 100% accurate, scientifically accurate.

Not bad for a "goat herder". Don't you think so?

last but not least you said:

quote]The oldest christian Bible is only 1600 years old, called "The Codex Sinaiticus" and you can actually read it online here: .

True and I'm familiar with the The Codex Sinaiticus, but the gage where we measure the age of the Bible is its contents - the writings as it relates to the historicity of the locations, its cultures, climates, lifestyle and others. Which point to the fact that the person who wrote it was actually there, alive witnessing the events.

There's no other book that can do that.

So as far as accuracy, when it deals with true science, the bible it's in full agreement.

Although there are some events in the Bible that critics likes to use to label and belitle the bible as unscientific, upon closer look the improbability of it not happening decreases as we gain more knowledge.

Of course there are some areas where our minds can't comprehend but that does'nt mean that they are impossible to occur.

Case in point - the origin of God.

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by Alxandro

My point exactly, you just "don't know".
No one does, for that matter, not even science.
That would mean the truth has to be somewhere in the middle.

Why would it be in the middle?? A few thousand years ago, people thought fire was an act of god. According to your theory, the "truth would be somewhere in the middle"...but we KNOW how fire works, the truth isn't "in the middle". The truth is, god has nothing to do with it, and we have zero evidence for the existence of such a deity. We do know how fire works down to the atoms though...

While it's true no one knows everything, its very possible that God may exist in the areas "you don't know" about, as well as in the areas you do know.

...but that's pure speculation as we have ZERO proof for the existence of a creator.

Creation and evolution actually have more in common than most people would like to think, but an "objective" person like yourself would never dare to admit it.

I think you're confusing objective with subjective. An objective person, and science is objective by its very definition, only cares about evidence. There's no personal "feeling" or "belief" involved. Science isn't biased which is evident by the use of scientific method in coming up with claims and theories. Everything is backed up by evidence and peer reviewed. Science is like a giant jury that judges theories and hypotheses.

Case in point, your number of 6035.
You are trying to use a straight and linear unit of measurement to gauge something which is an exponential curve in time itself.

I wasn't the one who came up with that number, BlueJay was the one claiming that's how long men has been on earth...obviously total hogwash as we found remains of homo sapiens that are 250,000 years old!

In other words, in the beginning, one day did not equal 24 hours as it does now. During the first day of creation, the universe was in chaos, as a result of having just experienced the big bang.

And you know that becaaaaaause....again, sorry, but that's pure speculation and a way creationists try to make the bible fit reality.

Fast forward a few billion years to that place in time that you would consider to be about 6035 years ago, and you basically find yourself very late in the day, of the Seventh Day of creation. That would be about the time, that time had actually begun to stabilize to what can now be considered linear time.

Again, pure speculation without providing any scientific evidence.

So, in a nutshell, just because we were created in God's image, doesn't mean our clocks tick the same.

And pure speculation again. You didn't prove there's a "God", you didn't prove we were created in his image, and you didn't prove any of your timeline claims.

All this is exactly what I mean when I talk about pseudo-science that isn't backed up by facts or evidence...

reply to post by edmc^2

If it's a coincidence that the writer of Genesis got it right the first time, that would be an out of this world coincidence, would you agree?

A stagering probability of 1 in 3,628,800 chance to get it right. Do you know of any other book that have that kind of accuracy? Not bad for a "goat herder".

First of all, he (more like they...the bible was written by more than 1 person) didn't get it right. Second of all, your "1 in 3,628,800" probability is nothing but a number you pulled out of your ass...but you're welcome to show me exactly how you came up with that.

"1 in 3,628,800", lol...pseudo-science at its best

the earth is hanging upon nothing

And this a great example of a lack of knowledge. The earth isn't "hanging upon nothing", it's held in place by gravity. Next time a coconut falls on your head, remember that you just got owned by "nothing"