My theory on creation.

[Speedwell]

[For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.]

Can you quote the verse(s) that this refers to? Is it your understanding that “incarnation” is one and the same as being born?

I believe that the primary source of that doctrine is the first chapter of the Gospel of John. No, the Incarnation took place at conception.

Does that mean that non-Catholic “churches” are not part of Jesus’ Church? If so, is that also denying that I am a Bible believing Christian?

Notice that "catholic" is spelled with a small "c," in which case it merely means "universal", and includes all Christians.

[We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.]

Is that suggesting that if a person is not baptized, he is not saved? What is the “one baptism” that this is alluding to? Can you provide the scripture?

It's a Sacrament. I don't think we need to get into that in this forum. In any case, I am bored with your gotcha game. This is all well known stuff. If you want to know what Christians who don't live in your "Bible-believing" universe believe, it's easy enough to find out.

 

[tevans9129]

If there was no time dimension, how could God create things in steps, with one event after the other?

Keeping two things in mind, one this is a hypothetical and two it involves a supernatural, intelligent being that is outside of time. Perhaps it will be easier to explain if we answer a couple of questions about “time” which I asked but no one seemed interested in answering.

"Time seems to be stated in microseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years and light years, therefore, if there is no sun and earth's rotation, what are those units based on?"


How would you answer that question?

"If, there is no intelligence to measure time, how can you prove the time dimension exists?"

Same question.

Since God is a supernatural being, time would not in any way be limiting for Him since it would not be in existence until He established the mechanisms, sun and earth’s rotation and the intelligence, man and some measuring instrument to use, i.e. morning and evening, sun dial etc.

I am not good with analogies but let me try, I place six stones in a pattern but no one is there to see me do it. How can anyone know how long it took me, how they were placed, in what order were they placed and what units of measurements did I use? The stones can be seen when someone is there to see them so that is a fact. What if, I said that I placed stone A in day one, stone B in day two, stone C in day three and so on and I also offered some information about the stones. How could you answer the question of when, where and how they were placed and in what sequence had I not told you?


Of course, I am not outside of time but since man was not there to see what was done, when it was done and how, why would we not accept the explanation by the one that was there? After that was established, anything relative to those stones could be explained after they were initially placed, would you agree?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The question being was it history to Moses, the presumed author and that would be a big yes. If it was history to the author, then it was meant to be read as history. Not anachronistic assessments far after the fact. Quote.

presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past.

1 Chronicles 1 contains Genealogies that start with Adam thru Noah and beyond. If anything Chronicles validates the Genesis account. If they are different, that is to be expected since the authors are different as well as the times. If the three reports you reference were all the same, then critics would say it was all by the same author at around the same time.

Well, I'm not saying that Adam wasn't a real person, but Genesis is largely meant to be theological and poetic. It conveys history, but it's not historical. IT wasn't written by Moses, though he may have compiled it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Got another scenario for you. God creates the universe including the stars, moon and earth billions of years ago and life about 6 thousand years ago. The creation account of creation week describes the clearing of the clouds, separation of water from land etc, then finally God creates man.

That's not what it says, the creation of man is revisited in the second chapter with special emphasis on the garden and the details of man's creation.

No, it's a different presentation with emphasis on man.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your point being what exactly?

The point being that religion is not contrary to science. Many scientists are men of faith. To pit science against religion is a false dichotomy.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Two questions... 1) what is your definition of "Christian"? 2) Do you have verifiable data for that "close to two billion Christians" figure?

One more, I believe there are over a billion Muslims that disagree with Christianity, does that make them correct?

Considering that the Muslim religion began 700 years after Christianity, I'd say no. The figure for # of Christians is about 1.5 Billion. Mostly Catholic.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Considering that the Muslim religion began 700 years after Christianity, I'd say no. The figure for # of Christians is about 1.5 Billion. Mostly Catholic.

And there are more than one billion Hindus in the world that disagrees with Christians and Muslims alike. Since Hinduism is way older than other religions it must be the correct one, right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

I would have you repeat the exercise, under controlled conditions, in his presence.

 

[pitabread]

No, it's the definition that is behind Darwinian evolution, you ignore it and it never goes away. That's on you.

Out of curiosity, I started a poll on the definition of "Darwinian Evolution": Darwinian Evolution

Right now your definition isn't too popular...

 

[Root of Jesse]

And there are more than one billion Hindus in the world that disagrees with Christians and Muslims alike. Since Hinduism is way older than other religions it must be the correct one, right?

Which branch of Hinduism? Seems they have lots.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Considering that the Muslim religion began 700 years after Christianity, I'd say no. The figure for # of Christians is about 1.5 Billion. Mostly Catholic.

And there are more than one billion Hindus in the world that disagrees with Christians and Muslims alike. Since Hinduism is way older than other religions it must be the correct one, right?

Which branch of Hinduism? Seems they have lots.

Which branch of Christianity? Seems they have lots.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I agree with all of this. However, I wouldn't even believe it if man created a provable explanation for how everything came into existence. I have all the proof I need and that is the Bible's explanation of Creation. However, I don't believe all of what man has said about creation. Mainly, I don't have any idea how many years the world has existed. In fact, no one can find that.

I believe that as close as we get to the end of times, the more proof they are going to find against God because when the end occurs, Jesus will return and obtain the few Christians that remain. The closer we get to the end, the more we have to rely on faith, and the harder it will get to follow God through and through.

Actually science has been proving God to be the most probable explanation for life on earth. Scientists have been contemplating everything that is necessary for life to exist on earth and when you examine all of the factors that are absolutely necessary for life to exist you can see that the odds of everything coming together so perfectly are absolutely astounding and inconceivable to happen just by chance. They're now coming to the realization that life on earth must be part of a plan. Here's a video that has some very compelling evidence of how science is proving God's existence. It gives some great incite on evangelizing to atheists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually science has been proving God to be the most probable explanation for life on earth. Scientists have been contemplating everything that is necessary for life to exist on earth and when you examine all of the factors that are absolutely necessary for life to exist you can see that the odds of everything coming together so perfectly are absolutely astounding and inconceivable to happen just by chance. They're now coming to the realization that life on earth must be part of a plan. Here's a video that has some very compelling evidence of how science is proving God's existence. It gives some great incite on evangelizing to atheists.

Seriously, that man is an idiot. He may not be a liar, but he is a complete fool. If you care to learn his entire series has been refuted:

Irrefutable Proof of God - YouTube

 

[RGW00]

Actually science has been proving God to be the most probable explanation for life on earth. Scientists have been contemplating everything that is necessary for life to exist on earth and when you examine all of the factors that are absolutely necessary for life to exist you can see that the odds of everything coming together so perfectly are absolutely astounding and inconceivable to happen just by chance. They're now coming to the realization that life on earth must be part of a plan. Here's a video that has some very compelling evidence of how science is proving God's existence. It gives some great incite on evangelizing to atheists.

You are right. But the media and a lot of liberals (and even conservatives) believe today that there is no God or it's possible. Honestly, when it comes down to it, a lot of people there could be a god. But if they don't believe in Jesus and they don't refer to the Bible that He was a living human being at one point and died and rose again, they can't get to Heaven. That's the problem, the first step should be to believe in Jesus but a lot of people believe in God. Sure that will lead you to believe that Jesus is real but some it will not. It's just an unfortunate situation but that's the way lots of people look at it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Seriously, that man is an idiot. He may not be a liar, but he is a complete fool. If you care to learn his entire series has been refuted:

Irrefutable Proof of God - YouTube

Yes I agree with you. I don't agree with many things David Pack says. After I posted the video I thought about mentioning it but I'm at work so I didn't.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Seriously, that man is an idiot. He may not be a liar, but he is a complete fool. If you care to learn his entire series has been refuted:

Irrefutable Proof of God - YouTube

I would like to add that this particular video is very good. This was the first of his videos I watched. Then I watched a few more and learned that he's a SDA and that's when I lost interest in him.

 

[SkyWriting]

Too long, didn't read. Here is a question for you:

What reasonable test could demonstrate that your "theory" is wrong, it is wrong? If you cannot think of a way of testing your concept all that you have is an ad hoc explanation and that is worthless in the world of science.

Second, how do you explain the mountains of scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution and the total lack of such evidence for creationism? Again, if you can't answer that question all you have is an ad hoc explanation, and those are once again worthless.

Just as worthless as quantum physics explanations for fluctuations in quantum matter that
could result in a matter antimatter imbalance resulting in the formation of something from nothing?
A "big-Bang" so to speak....(in silent space.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would like to add that this particular video is very good. This was the first of his videos I watched. Then I watched a few more and learned that he's a SDA and that's when I lost interest in him.

Sorry, none of his videos are any good. Did you click on the link that I gave you? All of his videos are torn to pieces in that series.

 

[bhsmte]

Which branch of Hinduism? Seems they have lots.

I would bet not as many denominations as christianity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Which branch of Christianity? Seems they have lots.

They do, but many are later innovations. The biggest difference between Christianity and any other religion is that Jesus claimed to be God.