God did not create from nothing

Platte · 2026-06-07T12:04:14-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
It's not remarkable. It's what we'd expect if the author (let's say it was Moses) was privy to some historicized traditions from Mesopotamia, and maybe some from Egypt, that remained extant sometime during the middle to late 2nd millennium BC. It's not a miracle and it's not an accidental coincidence that the writing in Genesis represents a Hebrew theological reflection of a few thousand years prior.

Did you realize what you were saying here? That Moses had information that we didn’t have until only a few hundred years ago

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-07T12:49:52-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
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.

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

I didn't find that convincing in the slightest. We have ancient tablets that resemble the some parts of Genesis, but they are myths from other peoples, in other languages, with other characters, and other gods. The documentary hypothesis doesn't depend on any particular ancient recorded form, just that the text we have now seems to be constructed from multiple textual traditions or versions of some of these stories I don't think anyone has expectation that such texts could be found or that they are from the bronze age. (Then there is the gratuitous attempted parallelism between the "failing" documantary hypothesis and the "failing" Darwinian one.)

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-07T12:59:30-0500

Platte said:
Did you realize what you were saying here? That Moses had information that we didn’t have until only a few hundred years ago

I think you're not realizing that simply because I don't use or rely upon the same descriptors that you think are appropriate---like the term 'remarkable'----doesn't mean I don't think Genesis is intriguing as an ancient literary Hebrew narrative. I just don't use the term 'remarkable' because the archaeological record for ancient Israel is fragmentary and doesn't easily line up with the biblical narratives. Moreover, it's a known state of the case that historical facts and artifacts still have to be interpreted, which involves a handful of competing historiographic frameworks which affect any one historian's, archaeologist's, or anthropologist's methodology of study.

But I still find Genesis intriguing, even sacred.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-07T13:17:39-0500

Hans Blaster said:
I didn't find that convincing in the slightest. We have ancient tablets that resemble the some parts of Genesis, but they are myths from other peoples, in other languages, with other characters, and other gods. The documentary hypothesis doesn't depend on any particular ancient recorded form, just that the text we have now seems to be constructed from multiple textual traditions or versions of some of these stories I don't think anyone has expectation that such texts could be found or that they are from the bronze age. (Then there is the gratuitous attempted parallelism between the "failing" documantary hypothesis and the "failing" Darwinian one.)

On the one had, I guess I could just say that I generally agree with you, but doing so seems like it would too easily wipe away the additional things that come to my mind here as I write this. So, I'll just say a few additional things ........................

I didn't post a link describing the Wiseman Hypothesis in order to be "convincing." Don't assume too much. My methodology of study is to cull from a WIDE array of sources from a WIDE array of positions, picking bits and pieces of interesting statements from all that is available. This way, I don't fall into the usual gutters of confirmation bias.

I can remain open to culling a few thoughtful points from something like the Wiseman Hypothesis just like I do from the varied positions derived from the Documentary Hypothesis, or from the Fragmentary Hypothesis or the Supplementary Hypothesis. Or from any other scholarly hypothesis about the POSSIBLE literary, cultural and historiographical nature of the first 5 books of the Old Testament, as well as the rest of it.

Besides, you don't see me here saying that, "Oh boy, everybody, looky here at all that the evidence we have that corroborates the Wiseman Hypothesis!!! Oh goody, oh goody, oh boy, let's go !!!"

Yeah, that's not where I stand with things on the book of Genesis from my own (however limited) engagement with a swath of scholars from various sides.

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-07T13:47:49-0500

sjastro said:
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.

When your apologetics involve lies about science, you've gone too far.

sjastro said:
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.

A good video. When I watched this video the "feed" presented this one on "isotopic reset" etc. from GEO Girl

or

for a link that works for me.

Another link it provided is this video from Alexis Dahl (who has gone "Yooper") that goes with a recent thread on the "Faint Sun Paradox" regarding "Banded Iron Formations".

-57 · 2026-06-07T15:29:23-0500

Platte said:
Most igneous rocks were created at Creation

This site explains why polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years......Click here.

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-07T18:03:49-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
On the one had, I guess I could just say that I generally agree with you, but doing so seems like it would too easily wipe away the additional things that come to my mind here as I write this. So, I'll just say a few additional things ........................

oh

2PhiloVoid said:
I didn't post a link describing the Wiseman Hypothesis in order to be "convincing." Don't assume too much. My methodology of study is to cull from a WIDE array of sources from a WIDE array of positions, picking bits and pieces of interesting statements from all that is available. This way, I don't fall into the usual gutters of confirmation bias.

I've given up trying to figure out what your biblical studies methodology or care what it is. I was commenting on the Wiseman hypothesis, not on your hermanutical exigesis (or exfoliation).

2PhiloVoid said:
I can remain open to culling a few thoughtful points from something like the Wiseman Hypothesis just like I do from the varied positions derived from the Documentary Hypothesis, or from the Fragmentary Hypothesis or the Supplementary Hypothesis. Or from any other scholarly hypothesis about the POSSIBLE literary, cultural and historiographical nature of the first 5 books of the Old Testament, as well as the rest of it.

Besides, you don't see me here saying that, "Oh boy, everybody, looky here at all that the evidence we have that corroborates the Wiseman Hypothesis!!! Oh goody, oh goody, oh boy, let's go !!!"

Yeah, that's not where I stand with things on the book of Genesis from my own (however limited) engagement with a swath of scholars from various sides.

The hypothesis as presented involves earlier versions of early chapters of Genesis being recorded on tablets. I've seen no evidence that the ancient Israelites wrote on tablets at all. What written material we have from this period are written on pottery or stones in scripts based on the Phoenician alphabet as do most of the Leventine region in the early Iron Age.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-07T18:25:54-0500

Hans Blaster said:
oh

I've given up trying to figure out what your biblical studies methodology or care what it is. I was commenting on the Wiseman hypothesis, not on your hermanutical exigesis (or exfoliation).

The hypothesis as presented involves earlier versions of early chapters of Genesis being recorded on tablets. I've seen no evidence that the ancient Israelites wrote on tablets at all. What written material we have from this period are written on pottery or stones in scripts based on the Phoenician alphabet as do most of the Leventine region in the early Iron Age.

OK.

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-07T20:00:55-0500

Hans Blaster said:
When your apologetics involve lies about science, you've gone too far.

A good video. When I watched this video the "feed" presented this one on "isotopic reset" etc. from GEO Girl

or

for a link that works for me.

Another link it provided is this video from Alexis Dahl (who has gone "Yooper") that goes with a recent thread on the "Faint Sun Paradox" regarding "Banded Iron Formations".

Arghhh. This site's ad sales machinery (which doesn't show me any ads I can click) mangled that y ou tu . be link as well. Perhaps I need to explicity put it in the URL feature:...

youtu.be/WcxKOs7xvRk

AV1611VET · 2026-06-07T20:59:37-0500

Hans Blaster said:
I've seen no evidence that the ancient Israelites wrote on tablets at all.

Keep looking.

From AI Overview:

Ancient Hebrews and related Semitic peoples wrote on stone. While the most famous examples are religious and legendary, archaeological evidence confirms that carving text into stone was a common practice in the ancient Levant.

While the original Mosaic tablets have not survived, ancient Hebrews and closely related groups (such as the Samaritans and Moabites) did inscribe texts on stone for official and monumental records.

Although they could write on stone, it was not their primary method for everyday writing or literature. Stone was used primarily for permanent public monuments, royal decrees, or boundary markers.

Hans Blaster said:
What written material we have from this period are written on pottery or stones in scripts based on the Phoenician alphabet as do most of the Leventine region in the early Iron Age.

Keep looking.

From AI Overview:

We possess a rich and extensive collection of ancient writings in the Hebrew language. These surviving texts range from monumental historical inscriptions and everyday administrative records to the foundational books of the Hebrew Bible and early Jewish religious documents.

sjastro · 2026-06-07T21:01:36-0500

-57 said:
This site explains why polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years......Click here.

An oldie but a goodie.
Firstly the AI method for debunking.

halos.com / Gentry claim Why it fails
Polonium halos prove granite was instantly created. The rocks used for some of Gentry’s key samples are not “primordial Genesis rocks.” The geological setting shows they occur in rocks that crosscut older rocks, including sedimentary rocks with stromatolites, which means they are part of a later geological history, not original created basement. (CSUN)
Short polonium half-lives mean the polonium had to be trapped immediately. This assumes the polonium was primordial. A natural mechanism exists: uranium-bearing minerals continuously decay through radon and polonium daughters; fluids, microfractures, pegmatites, and vein-dikes can concentrate these products later. (National Center for Science Education)
There is no natural source for isolated polonium halos. Radon-222 is a gas in the uranium-238 decay chain. It has a half-life of about 3.8 days, long enough to migrate through microfractures before decaying into polonium daughters. This naturally explains why uranium-238-series polonium halos are preferentially found. (TalkOrigins Archive)
The halos occur in ordinary granite formed from magma. Some important halo-bearing occurrences are in calcite vein-dikes or pegmatitic/replacement settings, not simple slowly cooling granite magma. In the Silver Crater Mine case, NCSE notes that Gentry’s claim is “immediately nullified” because those halo-bearing minerals occur in a calcite vein-dike, which fills fractures after the granite already existed. (National Center for Science Education)
The pattern uniquely proves primordial polonium. If the halos were primordial polonium, halos from other polonium isotopes in the uranium-235 and thorium-232 decay chains should also be expected. They are not found in the way Gentry’s model predicts. (National Center for Science Education)
The claim is “unrefuted.” It has been directly challenged by geologists and science-education sources. Even Kurt Wise, a creationist geologist, argued that the geology of the halo research was incompletely documented and cast doubt on Gentry’s model. (Creation Research Society Quarterly)
It supports a young Earth. To make the whole argument fit a young Earth, one must also reject multiple independent radiometric dating systems. But many dating methods using different isotopes agree, and drastically accelerating radioactive decay would release enough heat to create severe physical contradictions. (TalkOrigins Archive)

Secondly the sjastro method for debunking.
When I look outside facing due south I see this.

The hills are granite intrusions called the You Yangs and were formed during the Devonian period around 365 million years ago when magma rose into the surrounding rocks, cooled slowly underground, and crystallised before being exposed on the the surface as granite through millions of years of mainly weathering and erosion which removed the surrounding and overlying rocks leaving the granite which is relatively resistant to erosion.
The You Yangs were not 'instantaneously created' in situ on the surface.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-07T21:27:16-0500

sjastro said:
The hills are granite intrusions called the You Yangs and were formed during the Devonian period around 365 million years ago when magma rose into the surrounding rocks, cooled slowly underground, and crystallised before being exposed on the the surface as granite through millions of years of mainly weathering and erosion which removed the surrounding and overlying rocks leaving the granite which is relatively resistant to erosion.
The You Yangs were not 'instantaneously created' in situ on the surface.

You'd be surprised with what God did with hills.

Ps 95:4 In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also.

Ps 97:5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Ps 104:32 He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.

Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

Na 1:5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.

halos.com / Gentry claim	Why it fails
Polonium halos prove granite was instantly created.	The rocks used for some of Gentry’s key samples are not “primordial Genesis rocks.” The geological setting shows they occur in rocks that crosscut older rocks, including sedimentary rocks with stromatolites, which means they are part of a later geological history, not original created basement. (CSUN)
Short polonium half-lives mean the polonium had to be trapped immediately.	This assumes the polonium was primordial. A natural mechanism exists: uranium-bearing minerals continuously decay through radon and polonium daughters; fluids, microfractures, pegmatites, and vein-dikes can concentrate these products later. (National Center for Science Education)
There is no natural source for isolated polonium halos.	Radon-222 is a gas in the uranium-238 decay chain. It has a half-life of about 3.8 days, long enough to migrate through microfractures before decaying into polonium daughters. This naturally explains why uranium-238-series polonium halos are preferentially found. (TalkOrigins Archive)
The halos occur in ordinary granite formed from magma.	Some important halo-bearing occurrences are in calcite vein-dikes or pegmatitic/replacement settings, not simple slowly cooling granite magma. In the Silver Crater Mine case, NCSE notes that Gentry’s claim is “immediately nullified” because those halo-bearing minerals occur in a calcite vein-dike, which fills fractures after the granite already existed. (National Center for Science Education)
The pattern uniquely proves primordial polonium.	If the halos were primordial polonium, halos from other polonium isotopes in the uranium-235 and thorium-232 decay chains should also be expected. They are not found in the way Gentry’s model predicts. (National Center for Science Education)
The claim is “unrefuted.”	It has been directly challenged by geologists and science-education sources. Even Kurt Wise, a creationist geologist, argued that the geology of the halo research was incompletely documented and cast doubt on Gentry’s model. (Creation Research Society Quarterly)
It supports a young Earth.	To make the whole argument fit a young Earth, one must also reject multiple independent radiometric dating systems. But many dating methods using different isotopes agree, and drastically accelerating radioactive decay would release enough heat to create severe physical contradictions. (TalkOrigins Archive)

God did not create from nothing

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Reconstruction 3 will come

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads