When your error has been pointed out repeatedly by several people, as yours has, yes, I consider that polite and respectful – I am, after all, still assuming that you are capable of learning what you’re talking about instead of continuing to hold onto error that has been corrected.
I did say something constructive:
Go back to grammar school and learn that words can have multiple definitions.
Then go back to middle school science and learn the scientific definition of that term.
You’ve been making large and egregious mistakes in your talk about evolution. I suggested how to correct that. Others have done the same. You should in fact be surprised at how patient everyone has been.
as you should know the Bible is not exhaustive on the details of the Arks construction, but it does provide enough information to at least get a basic picture of the Ark’s general shape which is of a vessel that looks a bit like a barge or perhaps you could even compare it to the general draught shape of an oil tanker.
But I am surprised that you consider yourself an expert on naval architecture and conclude from nothing but a rudimentary drawing that the Ark would fall apart. Utter nonsense.
Why don’t you believe what the 70 translations of the Bible and Jesus Himself so carefully and clearly tell us all that the Holy Scripture account of the Ark and the Flood are REAL History.
Why must you disbelieve?
Remember Genesis 6:11-22
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.
22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
And Remember Genesis 7:16:
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.
It is clear that the Lord God was present with Noah at the Flood. I think, though the Holy Scriptures do not specifically mention it as far as I know, that it is very likely that God guided Noah in the construction of the Ark, the Holy Scripture records enough of its dimensions that we are able to get an idea of the size of the Ark, and I think it is also very likely that God was with righteous Noah on the Ark and being for His divine purpose and constructed at His divine command, He guided and protected the Ark and its precious cargo through the flood that ultimately He brought upon the Earth and is in control of for the purpose that we are reliably informed at Genesis 6:5-7:
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Again utter nonsense! I refute that egregious allegation.
No one is slandering anyone and no lie is being perpetrated.
If you choose to read into from the relative perspective of your worldview that ‘Dark Energy’ and ‘Dark Matter’ are real, well good for you.
Personally, it doesn’t matter to me either way if it is real or not, but one thing I do know is that most of the entire universe is supposedly made, of ‘Dark Energy’ and ‘Dark Matter’ yet no one has ever seen either of them.
The search has now gone on for ‘Dark Energy’ and ‘Dark Matter’ for about 45 years and yet no one has found anything, not a shred of evidence!
You would do yourself an immense service if you informed yourself of the real situation at:
Same again!
Again utter nonsense! I refute that egregious allegation.
No one is telling a lie here.
To claim that ‘Dark Energy’ and ‘Dark Matter’ are proven as real is a BIG stretch of the imagination.
What if, as is completely reasonable those direct measurements on observations, that are interpreted as being caused by gravity, (which may be the case, however it is possible there may also be another reason), are discovered to be caused by something that as yet we know nothing about?
Scientific discovery is replete with examples of just such events.
Well let’s just wait and see if in reality the imagined ‘tree of life’ that is simplistically based on the visible morphology is incongruent with the ‘tree of life’ based on DNA sequence.
As we are reliably told in the Bible that God spoke life into existence in creation week, I would expect that the imagined evolutionary ascension will not be demonstrated. Of course I expect that any similarities that are found will be shouted off the rooftops by the believers of evolution as proof. But as has been pointed out now too many times to count, all life live on the Earth under the same gravitational force, and have access to the same biochemistry, in most cases respire by oxidising fuel, power cellular machinery with adenosine triphosphate etc. and most importantly were all designed by the same incomprehensibly brilliant Designer, thus it is to be expected that there will be many similarities; but as for being proof of evolution, no, but let’s wait and see what comes out of the sequencing.
Tim, I strongly suggest that you read and absorb the true facts about the Earth by reading the informative and trustworthy article at:
and if you need more convincing about the error in your interpretation here, I suggest you read:
Tim, it does appear that you sorely underestimate the intelligence of the inspired authors of the Bible and in this particular case Genesis.
You would do yourself an eternal favour if you carefully read the honest article at:
Neither you nor any other YECer has ever shown that in the text; instead they talk of “normal use of language” while ignoring the normal use of language. They won’t even do the homework of finding out what kind of literature various parts of scripture actually are, they just assume that they are smarter than people who actually study such things and so what it looks like to them is what it must be.
I won’t answer for Tim, but for myself – I believe what the text says; unlike YEC I refuse to add to it, take away from it, ignore the grammar, change the meanings of words, or use any other excuses to impose a certain point of view.
BTW, from the principles we’ve seen you apply on here, from Genesis 6:12 we have to conclude that deer and salmon and butterflies had become sinners.
Given the number of miracles required, if it was just about survival there was no need for an Ark, just raise one plateau higher than the Flood and have Noah & Co. go there.
You ask why a large Ark, but you don’t seem to know why an Ark in the first place.
That’s either a lie or astounding ignorance. All that we have for Dark Matter is evidence; the thing itself is elusive – that’s why the “dark” part of the name: we can’t see it or detect the stuff in any other direct way.
Let’s see . . . whatever it is exerts gravitational force; that’s how we know there’s something there. Since there is no evidence that it behaves any differently from ordinary matter, thinking it’s something other than gravity is not reasonable.
Invisible things exerting gravitational force have been encountered before, but they’ve been tracked down because we came up with ways to observe them. Heck, Neptune was found because something we couldn’t see was exerting a force on the more inward planets – would it have been reasonable to think there was some new force that just happened to act like gravity? No – instead people ran calculations as to what must be out there, and that gas giant was tracked down.
“Wait and see”? That boat came in forty years ago, with scientists gleefully pouncing on places that the placements of species using visible morphology didn’t match the DNA, and a lot of other scientists sighing as most of the proposed tree placements were confirmed.
That you don’t know this indicates that you have never had enough scientific knowledge to make a rational choice against evolution.
As was said in our informal intelligent design club, if all the organisms we have examined and catalogued so far were designed one by one, the Designer was an idiot.
And your YEC spam changes nothing since there is almost certainly no science in it.
You could have said much the same thing for neutrinos and the Higgs particle, but those supposedly naive indoctrinated scientists persisted and eventually coaxed out nature’s secrets. No thanks to creation scientists, who spend most of their time reading papers to misrepresent and speaking at churches. For a good while, the YEC circuit proclaimed that the Sun was shrinking, and missing neutrinos meant that scientists were wrong about stellar fusion, and that the Sun must be young. That gig was up when the missing neutrinos were detected.
Anyone with even a decent lay person awareness of dark matter understands that while there are implications for theory and the Big Bang, research is propelled by direct observations. This includes galactic rotation velocities from the core to the outer regions. Over the past decade or so, observations of gravitational lensing and predicted multiple appearances of supernovae have offered spectacular confirmation. It is possible that our understanding of General Relativity at large scale might require adjustment, but that alternative, never favored, has become less likely. If you perhaps spent more time reading actual research and depended less on creationist web sites, you would be aware of this.
More unmitigated nonsense that is utterly false.
False accusations upon more false accusations.
Let me know when you have finished bashing Bible believing Christians over the head with disrespectful false witness.
And yet although the search has gone on for forty five years, nothing has been found, sounds a bit like the wasted and pointless billions that have and are being spent on the search for extra terrestrial life that would do a lot more good feeding the starving millions and providing fresh drinking water around the world.
utter nonsense once again. If anyone disagrees with your particular Biblical worldview in your pompous self righteous opinion their doing this or that or the other that in YOUR mind makes them wrong and YOU right!
More unmitigated false accusations.
You brow beat anyone you can find what you think is a fault or an error.
Maybe you should take a long hard look at yourself first.
The Truth of the matter is you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO KNOWLEDGE of what literature searches, grammatical analysis, text comparisons, grammatical tense examinations etc… etc… I and/or others have done, so please get down off your self appointed very high horse and communicate with a tad more humility. Thanks!
Now there is a grandiose statement and judgement. I wonder on what grounds this idiocy is based? Some sort of perfection? consistency? compatibility?
Fancy calling God an idiot! Even if you think that Nature somehow made itself from God’s initial design, there is still a design involved or maybe creation was just a whim?
You have basically claimed that God had no part at all in the structure of creation. That would be a complete denial of Scripture, not just Genesis. (or that God is an idiot)
I am surprised that you didn’t realize the gopher wood was what they called steel when Genesis was written as they had no good word for it in Hebrew. Go-pher or “gopher” was derived from “good-ferrous” and wood just referred to building material.
No, I do not. But I can look up how well past very large wooden boats worked.
THEY ARE MEASURED TO BE REAL. The problem is “What are they?”
It’s not. I’ve done work with (and created) phylogenies based on both methods, and they match up impressively well (sometimes DNA produces surprises, like Pterotracheoidea being close to Littorinoidea and Naticidae, but nowhere near as often as it should if neither system works for determining ancestry).
There’s one of the problems–if a designer made all of these things directly (i.e., not by employing and/or guiding a system), then why should an analysis of DNA that encodes ribosomes or electron transport chain proteins (which should work exactly the same way for all organisms that use oxygen) match up well with analyses of morphology–whether radular, skull, or anything else?
What does the statement that what they wrote does not qualify as what someone in the modern West would think of as “history” have to do with my assessment of the intelligence of the writer? If writing history is the best measure of intelligence, then Milton and C. S. Lewis weren’t intelligent. Knowing the best way to communicate the intended message is a decent measure of intelligence in writing. Using the genre alone to assess the intelligence of the writer would be somewhere between irrelevant and idiotic.
I don’t have to be, or to have. When the people who actually engage in the science say you’re wrong, that confirms my understanding.
As for authority, you may not think so, but I see a duty to correct error when it makes Christians look like idiocy is required for faith.
Yes, I have, and it comes up void. Judging by what you’ve written, your entire case rests on a refusal to use scientific terms with their scientific meanings, on an inability to follow the theory as it stands, and a failure to believe that God is competent to create such a system as the theory describes.
If God has to poke His fingers in repeatedly to get things done He’s not much of a God, especially when He plainly doesn’t bother to optimize the individual designs.
Just reading a dozen articles at random from AiG and CMI is sufficient to show that the first specification is accurate.
Why? You do it constantly! You’re mostly writing to Bible believing Christians here, yet you bash and disrespect and lately have begun lying about others as well.
Given that you are the third YEC to come here (that I can think of) who has followed the path from disrespecting others to lying about them, it seems that disrespect and lies are just part of the YEC arsenal.
On my part, if I wasn’t Bible-believing I wouldn’t care how you trash the text, I’d just say it’s your opinion and let it be. You are so blinded that you cannot see that a fair amount of opposition to your views here comes directly because those involved are Bible-believing Christians.
You really need to take a university upper-level course on history and philosophy of science; many searches have taken up decades, and it is only reasonable that highly tough and important ones will take longer than others.
What you have done is evidenced by what you write, and from what you write it is plain that you change the meanings of words, ignore the grammar, and ignore the context – that’s not guessing, it;s observing what you actually do.
It’s called “morphology” and “genetics” and “logic”: what we see in living creatures shows either an elegant system that makes things that work, or the klutzy efforts of a dolt who doesn’t realize that his designs are far from optimal.
A God who had to do things the way you say should be called an idiot, because such a deity would not be the YHWH-Elohim of the scriptures.
But it is an elegant design, not the fumbling mediocrity of the one-by-one assembly you maintain. It is that elegant design that triggered the formation of our informal intelligent design club because it shows just how sublime and brilliant YHWH-Elohim is.
I could believe that of the deity you describe here since he apparently isn’t competent to set up Creation to run without continual tweaking.
If you think that you haven’t been paying attention.
I suggest that you may be able to look up some historical literature of unknown accuracy about some wooden boats in the not too distant past, but I’m certain you cannot look up how well the Ark built by Noah performed.
Therefore if you do NOT faithfully Trust and believe the Holy Scriptures about the Ark are true, then clearly you do not have any idea about anything to do with the Ark whatsoever, for where else can you find information about Noah and the Ark he built but in the Bible.
The Bible faithfully informs us all, the Ark carried its precious cargo safely through the flood that destroyed the Earth (earth if you must), and killed all life under heaven in whose nostrils was the breath of life; and I wholeheartedly accept that in faith to be faithful, accurate and True.
If you do not, that is your prerogative.
Things that are invisible yet are believed to exist cannot be measured.
I suggest that variations in the apparent behaviour/movement of stars are postulated to be caused by DE & DM but it is vital you realise, that is certainly a very much different thing to jumping on a set of bathroom scales and finding out you weigh 223 pounds!
Saying DE & DM are real is really a position of faith that you have in the BB theory.
I honestly don’t know for certain either way, nor do I much care, but to claim they are REAL when not a skerrick of confirmed evidence that any observed effects are caused by them is a big stretch. The fact is the search has now gone on for over 45 years and as yet nothing is confirmed whatsoever as to their validity.
When a high percentage of the major eukaryote life on Earth have had their genomes sequenced from scratch without using other genomes as a template, the comparison will be more useful.
I will take a precautionary approach on this one, and wait and see what the data really reveals.
I’m interested in the BIG changes that demonstrate the alleged iterative upward ascension of complexity all the way from single cell to mankind. The alleged gradual small mutations that collectively are alleged to have given rise to legs, eyes, sexual reproduction, hands, hearts and brains, ATP synthase machinery, DNA information and its decoding machinery that itself is written on the DNA, etc, etc…
With regard to your question:
Or more succinctly, “why should an analysis of DNA … … … … match up well with analyses of morphology”
Well, I expect that it won’t match up at all, because the whole concept of evolution is a man-made myth whereas the actual DNA sequence of each organisms genome was written/designed by God initially with a limited though vast amount of information to permit adaptation to the range of environments present on Earth where descendants of the originals end up throughout history.
When we have a more complete collection of genuinely novel genomes for a broad range of eukaryotes, it will be very interesting to evaluate this question in much detail.
I’m sorry, you appear to miss what I was hoping to convey here, perhaps I should have been clearer.
The opening words of the Holy Bible are,
“In the Beginning God made Heaven and Earth (earth)…”
The belief that history as a literary genre didn’t exist when Genesis was written appears to me at least to be a poor weak argument employed to discredit the Bibles very obvious accounts of REAL events of history, so they can be dismissed as allegory, or parable, or metaphor, etc. but it is vital you realise that to do so inflicts grievous harm to the Truth of the REAL events that God has informed us of within the Holy Scriptures.
It may not have been called ‘history’ as such in the Hebrew, though how you can faithfully believe you are sure about that, for the author of Genesis, (perhaps Moses), was around so very long ago, thus this is a question that needs a powerfully strong answer of unquestionable authenticity. Do you have such an answer?
I now understand that you do not believe what the Bible so clearly tells us about the order of God’s creative activity during creation week and the universal destruction brought about by the flood on all the land under Heaven.
But whatever you would like to call it, the fact remains that the Holy Scriptures in Genesis are clearly describing REAL events that occurred in the past that we now describe as historical narrative, regardless of whether that genre is purported to have existed then or not, the abundantly clear reality is the Genesis accounts are describing REAL events that happened in the past.
Put simply, the profound words of the Holy Bible in Genesis inform us all about REAL events that transpired in the past, whether or not the term or concept of ‘History’ as a literary genre existed then or didn’t is entirely irrelevant!
It’s quite evident the beliefs about the ‘literary genre’ of ‘history’ is a convenient device to disregard the lucidly clear meaning that Genesis is indeed REAL History of REAL events.
In short, it is yet another contrivance that corrupts the Truth of the Holy Scriptures.
The end result of these explanatory stories that manipulate the Holy Bible is ultimately to accommodate evolution and deep time mythology and puts billions of years of DEATH into the world prior to the sin of Adam, through which the Bible reliably informs us, ‘DEATH’ entered the world.
As far as I can tell, nothing at all, but it is my belief, (and I may be wrong), that the inspired human author of Genesis, (possibly Moses) in my view was highly intelligent.
As a consequence they were able to record precisely the God inspired words.
God is a God of Truth.
He does not tell lies or mislead us.
God informs us in Genesis about the REAL creation event and the REAL Flood event that He brought upon the Earth to extinguish all life on Earth (earth) under Heaven (except for those on the Ark), because the intent of man’s heart was on wickedness all the time, God is being scrupulously honest for our instruction because He Loves us all and does not wish that any should perish.
Well, it would seem that it worked well enough to keep Noah alive. Therefore, it was not built like the more modern giant wooden boats that sank quickly.
Atoms can’t be measured? The electricity powering my computer can’t be measured? The light in transit from the sun to my eyes can’t be measured? Radio waves can’t be measured? Gravity can’t be measured? None of those are visible, but they can all be measured, generally by their effects on other things. The same is true of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
ALL EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE FOR THEM ARE OBSERVED EFFECTS. They are defined to be “what is causing this effect”. In the case of Dark Matter, it’s definition is “whatever the extra mass causing galactic rotation speeds to be extra high, gravitational lensing by galaxy clusters to be extra strong, the center of mass of the Bullet Cluster to be off-center from the center of mass of the visible stuff, and a few other effects.” In the case of Dark Energy it’s “whatever the cause of the accelerating expansion of the space in the Universe.” If gravity turns out to behave in a weird manner over very large distances (which, given our best available measurements, it seems not to), then Dark Matter and Dark Energy may be superseded.
That type of sequencing will probably be doable within a few decades.
What all of the existing data (genomic, single gene, multi-gene, whatever) shows is far, far too much internal agreement for individual creation outside of a system to be parsimonious.
Yes; that is true. AND NOT HISTORY in any way, shape, or form. It is theology.
Are by no means always recorded within a work of “history” as a modern Westerner would define the term. Historical novels record real events of history; Judges 5 records real events of history; hymns about the resurrection record real events of history; some Sci-Fi includes real events of history; NONE OF THOSE ARE HISTORICAL WRITING.
“History” today does not include explicit statements of the supernatural causes of events, or hyperbole, or endorsements of one religion over another, or random details that turn out not to have long-term effects, or numerical symbolism. Every one of those features is present in the Pentateuch.
To insist that History is the only truthful way to describe the past does so. To insist that the Bible be read according to the actual genre of literature employed is part of the definition of “historical-grammatical”.
Modern historical writing does not invoke God, Angels, or supernatural punishments. It does not explicitly promote a specific religion. It does not employ hyperbole or symbolic numbers. It does not make digressions to provide moral instruction.
Yes. BUT NOT IN THE WAY THAT A MODERN-STYLE HISTORY WOULD.
Why should they? They’re not doing metaphysics, they’re doing science.
I know perfectly what it is about: ToE says things develop incrementally, and you say that’s not possible, but you have no argument except “It isn’t possible!”
So you’re essentially arguing that small things cannot add up to large things.
Irrelevant – it isn’t necessary to build something in order to calculate its material and structural strengths; it’s just physics/engineering calculations.
Nonsense. One need not believe that something has been built in order to calculate its material and structural strength.
An illustration: wood has two different aspects of strength, linear (i.e. along the grain) and crosswise (i.e. across the grain). Each of these has two types: compression and extension. Crosswise compression strength of wood is fairly string, but crosswise extension strength is low, i.e wood is hard to crush but easy to split.
An interesting fact from forestry class is that there is no wood that has a high enough crosswise extensional strength to keep from splitting well before the lengthwise strength is reached. This means that the important strength for wooden structures is crosswise extensional, i.e. its resistance to splitting.
Run the numbers and it turns out that there is no wood on the planet with sufficient resistance to splitting to build a storm-surviving seagoing vessels much more than half the dimensions of the Ark using regular lumber.
I’ve seen suggestions that the Ark was somehow made from plywood, but don’t recall any calculations for the strengths in that case – though my question was where Noah got (1) a good enough marine-resistant glue and (2) sufficient compression to get proper plywood sheets.
Ah, but what if, using the same set of scales, in the doctor’s office I weighed 170 pounds but at home I weighed 230? Would you conclude that there is some force in my house that doesn’t enter in at the doctor’s office?
Cosmologists are assuming that the same forces are at work but that at my house something is increasing the gravitational pull. Since it is mass that yields gravitational pull, the logical assumption is that whatever is at my house it is a large mass that is not present at the doctor’s office. Since it is matter that has mass, the logical assumption is that at my house there is some bulk matter not present at the doctor’s office.
So cosmologists go to my house and find an empty basement, and using ground radar find no excess mass below the basement – in fact they find that along the basement walls, things need sixty pounds of force to keep them from moving towards the center. The logical conclusion is that the excess mass, whatever it is, is at the center of my basement.
But that mass is not discernible in visible light, nor any other part of the spectrum; it is effectively invisible to all electromagnetic radiation – it is invisible mass.
Or you could be illogical and assume that aliens are playing a trick, or that magic is real and someone is playing games, or that there is some other form/substance that has mass but is not matter.
No; as in the above, cosmologists know that something is there because its effects can be measured. If its effects can be measured, then it is real regardless of what it turns out to be. That’s true even if (to go wildly inventive) eventually it is learned that sufficiently large black holes have intelligence, and that such concentrated intelligence exerts gravity.
You’re making the error of thinking that “dark matter” is a statement about what the stuff is, whereas it’s actually a statement of what it isn’t: it can’t be seen, and thus is “dark”, and it isn’t energy, and thus is “matter”. The two words are placeholders that together say “There’s something we can’t see that exerts gravitational force”, and that this something is real.
That requires no faith, only observation and measurement.
So far it has rarely failed. When I was taking botany classes there was a team formed between a university and several local colleges whose aim was to check the DNA for every questioned plant lineage among first local, then regional, then continental plants. The only local species cases where DNA didn’t match morphological classification were where botanists had argued over the latter.
[I learned about this when I brought back a field specimen I had identified as belonging to a species our reference book listed as extinct; my professor agreed with my classification but they verified it by DNA sequencing.]
You evidence that history existed as a literary genre? It would be awesome if you had some as it would get you articles in every major ANE and many other scholarly publications!
Where did you get this twisted mind, always suspecting that things are the result of conspiracies against you. The argument is employed because not a single example of writing that qualifies as history has been found prior to a good millennium after Moses (or even after King David). And it is a step towards understanding the actual message of the Bible by ruling out one thing it might be and letting the Bible be what it is.
What makes them more obvious real history than books by John Steinbeck? or John Grisham?
That’s the big hole in the narrative history idea: the criteria are such that all sorts of books qualify. This means that it requires external criteria to know if something is meant as history, something that is conceded every time someone says that Harry Potter and Star Wars are obviously not history: the only reason that is “obvious” is because not of internal but external evidence.
Actually it is vital to understanding the messages of the scriptures to read them as the ancient history types they actually are. Reading the opening Creation account as history throws out the great majority of the actual messages about God! it throws away almost all the theology!
Because Moses was educated in Egypt and therefor the only literary types he knew were the ones the Egyptians used – and history was not one of them. They had ‘royal chroncile’, they had imprecatory, they had temple inauguration, they had morality tales, they had origin stories, they had poetry and song, but they didn’t have any writing type that qualifies as history.
The opening of Genesis matches perfectly some of these literary types, and sinc those were what Moses knew then those are what the opening of Genesis must be. Those also carry lots of theological meaning that history wouldn’t, and Moses wouldn’t have wasted time composing something with very little theological meaning.
People today, due to our MSWV, want to know “What happened? in what order? with what?”, but those were not questions people were interested in back then; they wanted answers to “Who is YWHW-Elohim? who is the greatest god?” – and the opening of Genesis tackles those head-on.