Creation ex nihilo challenge

[Loudmouth]

Well considering that I have admitted to problems with some of my interpretations and the current evidence proves you wrong. Also, in the past the current thought did not support my position. So in both cases you are proven incorrect.

Some problems? Nearly the entire order of creation is wrong. That is more than "some".

 

[Queller]

Well I certainly understand that it is an interesting consideration but the fact is that it doesn't seem real possible considering several things like the one I gave you.

And according to several things like the one I gave you, it is possible. So why don't we stop arguing about it and let the physicists fight about it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Some problems? Nearly the entire order of creation is wrong. That is more than "some".

Not really.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And according to several things like the one I gave you, it is possible. So why don't we stop arguing about it and let the physicists fight about it.

Are we arguing? I thought we were having a very congenial discussion...who knew.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not really.

Like I said, you will make it say whatever you want.

 

[justlookinla]

No, the universe did not create anything. Nor was the universe created. It has always existed. It expands and contracts. This particular expansion/contraction cycle has lasted ~14B years so far. That's what this particular model of the universe hypothesizes.

Let's see how you twist this...

It's not twisting, it's trying to understand your viewpoint. If the present 14 billion year universe didn't exist 14 billion years ago, it was created somehow 14 billion years ago. A big bang creation, according to some...not sure if you agree or not. Something caused the big bang, I'm trying to determine what it was, in your opinion.

 

[Queller]

Are we arguing? I thought we were having a very congenial discussion...who knew.

Fine, how about we stop this congenial, but pointless, discussion about the Cyclic Model?

 

[CabVet]

Not really.

Yeah, when you creatively interpret it as you do, it is not really in disagreement, like fruit trees really being older than animals and then disappearing from the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years, and then re-appearing later, right?

How about the earth being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science? How about "night" and "day" being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science? How about plants being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science?

 

[Queller]

It's not twisting, it's trying to understand your viewpoint. If the present 14 billion year universe didn't exist 14 billion years ago, it was created somehow 14 billion years ago.

Yes, but the creation of the current universe does not mean it was created ex nihilo.

A big bang creation, according to some...not sure if you agree or not. Something caused the big bang, I'm trying to determine what it was, in your opinion.

I've explained this several times now. The current universe was created (not out of nothing) by the cyclical nature of the universe.

Something causing the Big Bang does not mean the Big Bang came out of nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fine, how about we stop this congenial, but pointless, discussion about the Cyclic Model?

You know what I think that is just a super idea.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, when you creatively interpret it as you do, it is not really in disagreement, like fruit trees really being older than animals and then disappearing from the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years, and then re-appearing later, right?

You do know that life could have began many times prior to what we have in the fossil record now, right? I'm not saying that is true but it could have been possible. Regardless, I have stated this is a problem with my position but it is interesting that all plants throughout time began at one time in history.

How about the earth being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science? How about "night" and "day" being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science? How about plants being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science?

I am finding I might be wrong about that.

 

[CabVet]

You do know that life could have began many times prior to what we have in the fossil record now, right? I'm not saying that is true but it could have been possible. Regardless, I have stated this is a problem with my position but it is interesting that all plants throughout time began at one time in history.

Yes, it could have, but if it did, chances that there were "fruit trees" before that disappeared for hundreds of millions of years only to reappear later are slim to none. And as you very well know, this is not the only problem. Nothing in the Biblical creation narrative aligns with current scientific evidence, from the timing to the order.

I am finding I might be wrong about that.

I find it surprising that you are only finding it now. But I am tremendously happy that you admit it.

 

[justlookinla]

Yeah, when you creatively interpret it as you do, it is not really in disagreement, like fruit trees really being older than animals and then disappearing from the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years, and then re-appearing later, right?

How about the earth being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science? How about "night" and "day" being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science? How about plants being created before the sun? Is that also in agreement with science?

You have such a limited understanding of creation it's not a surprise you reject scripture. Let me say this as gently as I can, but you're totally ignorant of what you're trying to discuss.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, but the creation of the current universe does not mean it was created ex nihilo.

I've explained this several times now. The current universe was created (not out of nothing) by the cyclical nature of the universe.

Something causing the Big Bang does not mean the Big Bang came out of nothing.

Right, the big bang came out of something. It's your view that the big bang came out of a universe which preceded the current universe?

 

[Loudmouth]

You do know that life could have began many times prior to what we have in the fossil record now, right? I'm not saying that is true but it could have been possible.

Cosmic teapot.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Cosmic teapot.

Non-Sequitur much?

 

[HitchSlap]

You have such a limited understanding of creation it's not a surprise you reject scripture. Let me say this as gently as I can, but you're totally ignorant of what you're trying to discuss.

Can't speak for CV, but let me say this as gently as I can, I reject creationism because I understand scripture.

 

[HitchSlap]

Non-Sequitur much?

Miss the point much?

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

 

[justlookinla]

Can't speak for CV, but let me say this as gently as I can, I reject creationism because I understand scripture.

Which creationism viewpoint do you reject?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't speak for CV, but let me say this as gently as I can, I reject creationism because I understand scripture.

If you understand Scripture, you understand that it takes faith, not evidence, to accept creationism.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.