Sarah Salviander & the Sequence of Biblical Creation

Sarah Salviander- she has a list of 26 “testable statements” of Genesis 1 here along with a lot of odd statements about the multiverse in her story:

And she also seems to misunderstand what a scientific theory is as she rejects anthropogenic global warming and evolution:

I’ll call that a good thing.

1 Like

Well you know she calculates the odds of Genesis getting all 26 statements in order to be 1 in 10^26th. If one doesn’t believe in God after that, I don’t know what could save them. Look out @Patrick there’s a new probability argument in town.

If by that you mean make up random probability calculations and read modern science into the Bible, then sure.


It amazes me that people put the ability of being scientifically correct while using phenomenal language as beyond God’s ability. Hugh Ross is just that kind of soft concordist. Prohibiting the possibility of scientific integrity inhering broadly with the Bible’s words is just as misguided as holding to a wooden literalism.

I hear what you’re saying, but I always get this nagging thought in my head, “which science?”. Copernican, Galilean, Newtonian? If Quantum Mechanics and Relativity aren’t in there does that mean the Bible is wrong? These might seem ridiculous, but I’m worried that this type of seeking of scientific concordism tends to look like post hoc rationalization rather than being derived from any hermeneutical principle. It also seems like what you might call a “God of the Current” problem. If we say that God built in scientifically correct descriptions/phenomena that were not known at the time of the writing (i.e. they were divinely “implanted”) then what happens when “scientifically correct” becomes “scientifically incorrect”? Science does change from time to time, would God become a liar, or would we have to say "oh, well this isn’t one of those places where there is concord? This is what I worry about.


I’m not worried, because it simply doesn’t say that “it’s turtles all the way down.”
It doesn’t present a theogony, any theomachy, and instead requires that the one true God be transcendent, while also immanent.

1 Like

I’m with Jordan. Hugh Ross forces the text to fit his understanding of the parts of science he likes, and yet he doesn’t let it fit the parts he doesn’t like. His personal prejudices guide his interpretation.



We’ve been over this before. The events and sequence of events in Genesis 1 are incompatible with what we know unless you weasel the heck out of your interpretation. The actual text has plants existing before the sun and before animals, birds before land animals. Ross weasels the first bit with some nonsense about opaque, translucent, and transparent atmospheres, and as as far as I can see ignores the rest.


I’m pretty sure it’s an old probability argument. It seems to be accepted only by those possessing a high degree of confirmation bias.

Ah, I see. You’ve already examined the ancient Hebrew text, then, and determined it can’t have his version of the entailed backstory as he presents it? Then you know nothing of ancient Hebrew and discourse analysis. You’re wrong.

1 Like

I missed the part where Ross examines the ancient Hebrew text. How’s his Hebrew? Seriously, it’s forced to fit. And what about the plants before animals, birds before land animals? Has Ross has ever talked about that?

Hugh Ross relies broadly on the work of C. John Collins, @jack.collins, among others, and yes, he has dealt extensively with the questions you mention.

Was that intended as a response? So Ross didn’t examine the Hebrew text either. How does he deal with plants before animals and birds before land animals?

See? You’re getting better at discourse analysis already! :o)

So you give me a broken link to nothing and a link to some kind of embarrassing youtube love-fest. Why not try a real answer?

Why not be normal and investigate before mouthing off? Was able to fix the broken links.
A summary of his book length elucidation of these questions is here:!
It’s one thing to say that an author has found a handy way to reconcile two very different perspectives, and another to come to the judgement that it’s a forced fit. I find his exposition satisfactory, while noting that he himself regards it as one interpretation among many, and doesn’t claim infallibility for it. He’s open to new information.

1 Like

There is “infallibility” and then there is declaring a 10-26 probability of the Old Testament getting the sequence exactly right.

So, critique his calculations, but you’ll also need to show how they’re wrong. And if you do, I’m sure he’d be willing to consider the critique, and adjust, if need be. So, seriously, is the standard no critiqueable positions, ever? Are we looking for a guru, or a touchpoint?

1 Like

Can you show us one example of any calculation that you are thinking of?