Snakes and creation.

Ah! Sorry if I made my statements to mean 6,000 yrs. It was not my intent. As far as man in concerned a 6 day creation works or 60 billion yrs. Regardless creation is accounted for in human terms ( narrative) only after man is created.

I don't know who did the editing... probably some smart individuals who could compile more than one first source account of creation into a one account. Or they compiled the accounts of two cultures into one, who's accounts had a solid history. More than not they were also allied to the spirit of God. I mean, they were not atheist studying creation stories simply for academic value. Simply they compiled their account of a monotheistic God and a type of man in league from a world with many different gods, some indifferent to man.
So your post was assertive guesses?
 

gordon 2

Senior Member
So your post was assertive guesses?
Guesses? Why the nerve! :) Personally I thought I was on the right track although I held back ---as it could have had a bit more cowbell. Not guesses but feelings in rhythm like the rank percussiveness or assertiveness of cowbell within a symphonic whole.

Something like this, but much more. It's like I get this fever:

 
Last edited:
Guesses? Why the nerve! :) Personally I thought I was on the right track although I held back ---as it could have had a bit more cowbell. Not guesses but feelings in rhythm like the rank percussiveness or assertiveness of cowbell within a symphonic whole.

Something like this, but much more. It's like I get this fever:

That skit was good. I watched it live back when SNL was still funny.
 
What is thought to exist:
(1) before the big bang; &
(2) if there was 'something,'
is it viewed to having been eternally in place
(e.g., a repeatedly expanding out & contracting back on itself & expanding back on out, etc, etc.)?
(3) if the 'something' is thought to be eternally in place,
how did the 'something' come into existence?
 
What is thought to exist:
(1) before the big bang; &
(2) if there was 'something,'
is it viewed to having been eternally in place
(e.g., a repeatedly expanding out & contracting back on itself & expanding back on out, etc, etc.)?
(3) if the 'something' is thought to be eternally in place,
how did the 'something' come into existence?
indeed, this has always fascinated me: whether you believe in the bible "there was nothing and then god waved the wand" approach or the scientific "there was nothing except a singularity that expanded" neither can explain how did nothing become something.

If god made it happen, where did he come from? Or if a tiny condensed spot of energy made it happen where did that spot of energy come from? The nuts & bolts of the origins of the universe are speculation and may never be solved.
 

WaltL1

Senior Member
but it's a big leap from the 70's until today! Back in the early 90's SNL was very good IMHO. David Spade, Adam Sandler, Chris Farley, Chris Rock, Mike Meyers, Phil Hartman, and others were consistently funny.
Yeah there were certainly some funny skits from that time frame but for me it just wasnt the same as the beginning.
This one is a classic though -
 

ambush80

Senior Member
indeed, this has always fascinated me: whether you believe in the bible "there was nothing and then god waved the wand" approach or the scientific "there was nothing except a singularity that expanded" neither can explain how did nothing become something.

If god made it happen, where did he come from? Or if a tiny condensed spot of energy made it happen where did that spot of energy come from? The nuts & bolts of the origins of the universe are speculation and may never be solved.
The only real difference is the addition of a consciousness, a motive. It's a hypothesis that unnecessarily overcomplicates the search for the truth at this time, in my opinion.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
Yeah there were certainly some funny skits from that time frame but for me it just wasnt the same as the beginning.
This one is a classic though -
Chris Farley didn’t hold back on any of his acting!!
 
The only real difference is the addition of a consciousness, a motive. It's a hypothesis that unnecessarily overcomplicates the search for the truth at this time, in my opinion.
good point. Take human motivations, egos and agendas off the table and get to the no-doubt-about-it truth. I hope we find out before I leave this world.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
good point. Take human motivations, egos and agendas off the table and get to the no-doubt-about-it truth. I hope we find out before I leave this world.
Sometimes I think the most important truth is that I like it when i scratch my dog's head and she likes it too.
 
This mornings yahoo headline tells of a new much larger(of that type) fossil found in Canada. Reading the article gives a feeling that scientifically a reader knows enough to understand and agree or disagree with their findings on species,age etc..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fossils-found-canada-belong-giant-140708586.html

But I clicked on the "study published Wednesday" link in the article and it put into perspective just how much effort goes into details which make up their conclusions. I think it will be an insight to many of just how much detailed effort goes into all of these discoveries until they can finally make a definitive call on what something is, how old it is,how long it has been there etc etc etc....
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210664
 
Top