Replies

I think you're attributing more to the lack of a definite article than is justified.

It's possible, and I almost didn't include it. However, I thought of the Cambrian explosion and other short periods of time where large numbers of new species suddenly appeared. I also remembered how bent out of shape the militant atheists were when these discoveries were made.

As with the the Big Bang theory, one of the major concerns of the militant atheists was that the Cambrian explosion fits too closely to the Bible.

However, the militant atheists forgot that they could count on the YECs not to take advantage of the discoveries because they held to a wrong interpretation of scripture.

The reason I said that about the use of the article is that in looking at Hebrew grammars one will say, yes, it is used here or not but never why it is used in Hebrew, only why it is or is not translated into English. Not much help since I can pick up a Bible and see what the translator did. And they often use “the” where the indefinite appears by default in Hebrew. That's a tough language.

The Cambrian explosion either has to be explained or explained away, the latter by the atheists seems the trend,
big oxygen burst, lot longer than it seems, not such an explosion after all, and so forth. I don't any atheist really wants anyone to understand what a really, really outstanding event is marked in areas like the Burgess
shales.
Of course many religious folks saw the big bang theory as supporting the Biblical account of creation and the two in the basics don't conflict, i.e., that there was a “beginning”, that there was some point when the material universe didn't exist and we have no way to see to the other side and in fact that our language isn't adequate to frame the question let alone the answer.

I do feel that some description like the big bang comes closer to Scripture than what is called the young earth creationists view even if the BB is not correct in every detail, details the Bible is silent on.