God did not create from nothing

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 3:31 PM

AV1611VET said:
So Moses just made up a race of people living hundreds of years?

From AI Overview:

The average life expectancy at birth for a person living around 2500 BC—particularly in early civilization centers like Ancient Egypt—was very low, generally estimated to be between 20 and 35 years.

So Moses made all that up?

I didn't say that. I didn't say that at all. I just don't think that what we have in the first eleven chapters of Genesis was simply downloaded into his brain on a starry Sabbath night. It would be interesting to know that it was, but we unfortunately don't know that, nor do we know the extent to which what we find written in Genesis was directly dictated from God's own mouth

Moreover, I prefer to remove as much AD HOC explanation as I can from my attempt to justify my religious beliefs, especially with all that I've read over the years about ANE history (or World History for that matter).

sjastro · Friday at 3:33 PM

Platte said:
Most igneous rocks were created at Creation

So how do you tell the difference with igneous rocks which were not created at Creation?

Or is this using your own terminology are you employing fiction.

sjastro · Friday at 4:05 PM

Platte said:
Creation occuring 6000 years ago is extremely far fetched - vs 4.6 billion. In order to give Creation any plausibility you would need the impossible: History beginning 6000 years ago - and a civilization that begins with the Garden of Eden.

Are seriously suggesting two naked dudes running around in a garden is an example of civilization????

A more relevant barometer is to look at the origins of religion itself.

Notice the reddish colours around the skeleton, it is red ochre. The body was coated with red ochre at the time of burial.
The skeleton is of Mungo Man an Australian Aboriginal. Red ochre is used in aboriginal religious ceremonies to this very day suggesting Mungo Man is one of the earliest examples for religious practices.

So how old is Mungo Man, using various dating methods he is at least 40,000 years old and religion therefore did not originate 6000 years ago.

Dating Technique	Directly on Skeleton or Context?	Material Dated	Purpose	Approximate Age Results Reported
Stratigraphy (superposition)	Context	Sediment layers surrounding burial	Relative dating; determines whether remains are older or younger than adjacent layers	Indicates burial belongs to the Pleistocene lunette sequence, but does not provide a numerical age. (NSW National Parks)
Radiocarbon (^14C) Dating	Mainly context	Charcoal, shells, organic remains associated with occupation horizons	Establish age of human occupation and associated deposits	Typically around 40,000 years for associated materials; near the practical limit of the method. (NSW National Parks)
Thermoluminescence (TL)	Context	Quartz grains in sediments	Date last exposure of sediment minerals to heat or sunlight	Early studies produced ages around 40,000–50,000 years. (NSW National Parks)
Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL)	Context	Quartz sand surrounding the burial	Date last sunlight exposure of sediment before burial	Results have ranged from about 40,000 to over 60,000 years depending on study; now considered one of the most important methods at Lake Mungo. (NSW National Parks)
Electron Spin Resonance (ESR)	Direct dating of skeletal material	Tooth enamel and/or bone minerals	Measures accumulated radiation damage since burial	Produced ages around 62,000 ± 6,000 years in a major study. (Western Sydney University)
Uranium-Series (U-Series, Th/U)	Direct dating of skeleton and associated mineral deposits	Uranium and thorium isotopes in bone and calcitic coatings	Estimates age from radioactive decay and uranium uptake history	Used together with ESR; yielded ages broadly consistent with ~60,000 years in some studies. (Western Sydney University)
Protactinium-Uranium (Pa/U)	Direct dating of skeleton	Uranium and protactinium isotopes	Additional check on uranium-series age models	Used in conjunction with ESR and U-series studies. (Western Sydney University)

AV1611VET · Friday at 4:17 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I didn't say that at all. I just don't think that what we have in the first eleven chapters of Genesis was simply downloaded into his brain on a starry Sabbath night.

Neither do I.

Platte · Friday at 4:35 PM

sjastro said:
Are seriously suggesting two naked dudes running around in a garden is an example of civilization????

A more relevant barometer is to look at the origins of religion itself.

View attachment 380097
Notice the reddish colours around the skeleton, it is red ochre. The body was coated with red ochre at the time of burial.
The skeleton is of Mungo Man an Australian Aboriginal. Red ochre is used in aboriginal religious ceremonies to this very day suggesting Mungo Man is one of the earliest examples for religious practices.

So how old is Mungo Man, using various dating methods he is at least 40,000 years old and religion therefore did not originate 6000 years ago.

Dating Technique Directly on Skeleton or Context? Material Dated Purpose Approximate Age Results Reported
Stratigraphy (superposition) Context Sediment layers surrounding burial Relative dating; determines whether remains are older or younger than adjacent layers Indicates burial belongs to the Pleistocene lunette sequence, but does not provide a numerical age. (NSW National Parks)
Radiocarbon (^14C) Dating Mainly context Charcoal, shells, organic remains associated with occupation horizons Establish age of human occupation and associated deposits Typically around 40,000 years for associated materials; near the practical limit of the method. (NSW National Parks)
Thermoluminescence (TL) Context Quartz grains in sediments Date last exposure of sediment minerals to heat or sunlight Early studies produced ages around 40,000–50,000 years. (NSW National Parks)
Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Context Quartz sand surrounding the burial Date last sunlight exposure of sediment before burial Results have ranged from about 40,000 to over 60,000 years depending on study; now considered one of the most important methods at Lake Mungo. (NSW National Parks)
Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Direct dating of skeletal material Tooth enamel and/or bone minerals Measures accumulated radiation damage since burial Produced ages around 62,000 ± 6,000 years in a major study. (Western Sydney University)
Uranium-Series (U-Series, Th/U) Direct dating of skeleton and associated mineral deposits Uranium and thorium isotopes in bone and calcitic coatings Estimates age from radioactive decay and uranium uptake history Used together with ESR; yielded ages broadly consistent with ~60,000 years in some studies. (Western Sydney University)
Protactinium-Uranium (Pa/U) Direct dating of skeleton Uranium and protactinium isotopes Additional check on uranium-series age models Used in conjunction with ESR and U-series studies. (Western Sydney University)

No im saying Creation began at the Garden of Eden and so you would expect the first Civilization to be near there and it is

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 5:59 PM

AV1611VET said:
Neither do I.

However, I'm not one to boldly assert that we know with certainty that earlier texts like the Sumerian King List(s) or some Egyptian myths didn't have influence upon the writing of the Genesis narratives, taking into account the fact that the former likely came first with alleged statements about the very long lives of kings or pharaohs.

Then, later, the earliest composition of Genesis was written (or compiled), also reflecting the motif of very long life spans of prominent people, reckoned up until about the time of Abraham. And then much later after Moses, there was the Babylonian, Berrosus, who also wrote his own representational account of similarly exaggerated life span constructs (as historian Dr. David Miano briefly relates below for about 3 1/2 minutes):

It could be that Moses wrote his own Hebrew emendation of the older Sumerian and Egyptian accounts. Perhaps that of Moses was more accurate; or perhaps it was fanciful. We can only critically speculate about Moses' inspiration and literary method(S).

AV1611VET · Friday at 8:24 PM

sjastro said:
Are seriously suggesting two naked dudes running around in a garden is an example of civilization????

Are you suggesting they aren't?

dlamberth · 2026-06-06T00:15:21-0500

AV1611VET said:
Are you suggesting they aren't?

AI to the question "Are 2 people a civilization"

A civilization usually refers to a large, organized human society with several key features. Scholars in fields like Anthropology and Archaeology tend to look for things like:

A substantial population
Social structure (roles, hierarchy, or institutions)
Shared culture (language, traditions, beliefs)
Economic systems (trade, agriculture, or production)
Often settlements or cities
Some form of governance or rules

Two people can absolutely form a social unit—even a very meaningful one (like a family, partnership, or team)—but they don’t meet the scale or complexity typically required for a civilization.

If you’re thinking more philosophically, though, it gets interesting: two people could begin the foundation of a civilization—shared language, norms, cooperation—but it wouldn’t be called one yet.

If you want, I can break down the smallest group size anthropologists consider a “society” vs. a “civilization”—they’re not the same thing.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-06T05:13:09-0500

dlamberth said:
A civilization usually refers to a large, organized human society with several key features. Scholars in fields like Anthropology and Archaeology tend to look for things like:

Thanks for the info.

And I like this from AI Overview as well:

Technically, it is possible for two people to start a new population, but it is highly unlikely to result in a stable, long-term civilization. While two people can create a "new beginning," the significant genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding depression would make it almost impossible for their descendants to survive or form a thriving society, likely leading to severe genetic disorders.

Here is AI stating that mother nature cannot populate the earth from just two people.

But God can.

Mother nature, as powerful as she is, has to stand down when a miracle shows up.

Job 33:6 · 2026-06-06T07:45:28-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
Responses made to simply disparage science will be considered off topic to this forum.

Platte, when have you studied Historiography and the Philosophy of History?

It just seems like science has become so influential, that people can't have a normal conversation about the Bible without trying to have a discussion about petrology and structural geology.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-06T08:37:40-0500

Job 33:6 said:
It just seems like science has become so influential, that people can't have a normal conversation about the Bible without trying to have a discussion about petrology and structural geology.

Part of the problem, too, is that up until the 19th century, the Bible was generally understood to be an "infallible, perfect unity" of sacred writings.

But now, the modern sciences have brought about deepening concerns among those who require certainty about the Bible's previously claimed status of perfection. The sciences obviously challenge those formerly long held assumptions, leaving those who are in need of a hyper-spastic level of certainty and closure to have more and more cognitive dissonance as they fixate and hyper-ventilate over the Slippery Slope Fallacy, which they mistakenly feel has to apply if the Bible isn't "perfect."

Fortunately, Critical Thinking and education can cut through the overstatements that either Christians make about the Bible or that some scientists make about the nature of the world (whether they are Christian or Secular).

One can only hope that eventually we could all have a more casual, "normal conversation about the Bible" without having to bring up varied and hackneyed assertions about petrology and structural geology.

I know one thing: for me, the possible [historical] truths that the Bible may contain don't depend on understanding Genesis chapter 1 (or 2 or 3) in some ultra literal way via a linguistic misapplication of a form of the Correspondence Theory of Truth, and so this whole swath of threads on the conceptual disjunction between Evolution and Creation is superfluous and not the central concern.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-06T09:30:26-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
I know one thing: for me, the possible [historical] truths that the Bible may contain don't depend on understanding Genesis chapter 1 (or 2 or 3) in some ultra literal way via a linguistic misapplication of a form of the Correspondence Theory of Truth, and so this whole swath of threads on the conceptual disjunction between Evolution and Creation is superfluous and not the central concern.

EVOLUTION

CREATION

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-06T10:16:24-0500

AV1611VET said:
View attachment 380116

EVOLUTION

View attachment 380115

CREATION

You can rely upon your ad hoc assumption God made the world to "appear" as if it had age because He wanted to challenge everyone beginning in the 19th century.

I don't assume that, nor do I think it's either justified nor sensible to create ad hoc explanations to use as mortar for things the Bible doesn't actually state in order to 'make it all fit together harmoniously.' I think we should avoid just making stuff up in order to maintain certain nuances within our beliefs. Doing so doesn't qualify even as rational, truly deductive thinking, if deduction is what you're chasing and relying upon.

Of course, you can if you want to, but don't be surprised if people aren't impressed.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-06T12:47:11-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
You can rely upon your ad hoc assumption God made the world to "appear" as if it had age because He wanted to challenge everyone beginning in the 19th century.

You're confusing what I say about embedded age with what I say about the order of His creation.

I believe He purposely "jumbled" up the order, knowing that evolution would become a convincing story in the end times.

In other words, the more "jumbled" the order, the harder it is to force-fit it into cosmic evolution.

Earth before the sun in cosmic evolution?

No way!

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-06T13:33:15-0500

AV1611VET said:
You're confusing what I say about embedded age with what I say about the order of His creation.

I believe He purposely "jumbled" up the order, knowing that evolution would become a convincing story in the end times.

I'm not "confused" about your second sentence being an AD HOC statement. You DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW this is 'why' the text reads the way it does.

Personally, I'd say that the reason we find the order of creation in Genesis chapter one the way we do is because .... that's the order written by its author. It's an unjustified jump on your part to assume that there was some Divine Ulterior Motive involved, specifically aimed at us today. No, if anything, the implications of Genesis 1 are aimed at the 'false' religious beliefs among the Gentiles who lived during the Bronze Age (and maybe afterward in the Iron Age).

AV1611VET said:
In other words, the more "jumbled" the order, the harder it is to force-fit it into cosmic evolution.

If you want to stuff that into your interpretive pie, you can. I just don't expect to find socks in my apple pie.

AV1611VET said:
Earth before the sun in cosmic evolution?

Yep. They (the Hebrews, and Moses) would have thought the Earth was substantially of a different nature than the Sun and Moon.

However, the fact that Genesis 1 states that the Sun and Moon came after the creation of the Land and Sky, let's not read into Genesis 1 cheap, unhistorical and uncontextualized modern Fundamentalist misunderstandings about ancient Hebrew cosmogony.

AV1611VET said:
No way!

Apparently, the most important implied point made in the Genesis 1 text about the nature of the Sun and Moon is lost on you, AV. I'm surprised. One would think that with all of your wide-ranging biblical acumen you'd see it. But here you are, not seeing it.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-06T13:39:47-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not "confused" about your second sentence being an AD HOC statement. You DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW this is 'why' the text reads the way it does.

Maybe that's why I said, "I believe"?

You think?

2PhiloVoid said:
Personally, I'd say that the reason we find the order of creation in Genesis chapter one the way we do is because .... that's the order written by its author.

No argument there.

I believe that too.

64-dollar question: In your opinion, who SPECIFICALLY is that author?

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-06T17:04:59-0500

AV1611VET said:
Maybe that's why I said, "I believe"?

You think?

That's fair.

AV1611VET said:
No argument there.

I believe that too.

64-dollar question: In your opinion, who SPECIFICALLY is that author?

At present, I entertain two versions of my own opinion, one is the easy traditional answer of 'Moses compiled it,' and the second is that what we now know of as the book of Genesis is a later compilation of writing from later Hebrew people who reworked and expanded a now lost 'proto' work from Moses and other long lost Hebrew works like the Book of the Wars of the Lord or Book of Jasher. Those are my opinions, and I much prefer them than to the alternative of utterly relying upon the assumptions of the Documentary Hypothesis and its derivative positions.

If Moses existed--- and it's my loose opinion that he likely did --- it's also my opinion that he was educated for his time (in Egypt?) and advanced Monotheistic thought and writing an innovative step (or three) beyond what previous Babylonian, Assyrian and Egyptian thinkers were able to come up with.

However, this isn't to say that Moses didn't make use of pieces from even more ancient, prior accounts that were a part of the Abrahamic oral tradition or from lore about the world known in Egypt and Midian, or maybe from some of what may have been left extant to him in cuneiform. (Only the Lord knows, and to whatever extent God either directly spoke to, or indirectly inspired, Moses, so much the better).

But whatever the case, I will always start with the Critical position first and work out and up from that, letting the Biblical writings earn their spot in my thinking rather than taking them axiomatically where historiographic study needs to be engaged. It's these issues that I think need to be focused on, not whether or not Genesis 1 should be expected to be juxtaposed and contrasted with Evolutionary Theory.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-06T17:49:54-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
At present, I entertain two versions of my own opinion, one is the easy traditional answer of 'Moses compiled it,' and the second is that what we now know of as the book of Genesis is a later compilation of writing from later Hebrew people who reworked and expanded a now lost 'proto' work from Moses and other long lost Hebrew works like the Book of the Wars of the Lord or Book of Jasher.

Well ... that narrows it down to, "I don't know."

2PhiloVoid said:
Those are my opinions, and I much prefer them than to the alternative of utterly relying upon the assumptions of the Documentary Hypothesis and its derivative positions.

What about the Wiseman Hypothesis / Tablet Theory?

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-06T19:12:26-0500

AV1611VET said:
Well ... that narrows it down to, "I don't know."

You're right about that. I don't know. Then again, no 21st century human mind "knows" who wrote Genesis 1 with any certainty. I do hear rumors though of some who claim to know.

AV1611VET said:
What about the Wiseman Hypothesis / Tablet Theory?

It is a possibility as far as historical stabs in the dark go. But as with most hypotheses, it has be taken with a grain of salt or two.

Still, I can't say that I dislike P.J. Wiseman's angle on the topic. It has its charms.

The ‘Genesis Tablets’: An Introduction to the Wiseman Hypothesis

An alternative theory to the Documentary Hypothesis, relating to the earliest composition of the Bible

armstronginstitute.org

sjastro · 2026-06-06T21:50:10-0500

Getting back to radiometric dating of rocks in this case from the Mt St Helens eruption of 1980.
First the creationist side of the story, this video is fortunately only 3 minutes long and cherry picks to completely misrepresent the results which is typical of YEC sites.

The science gives the unedited non-cherry picked version which exposes the flaws in the dating process including the fraudulent practice of not reporting the error bars on the potassium and argon measurements.

God did not create from nothing

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Newbie

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Newbie

Similar threads