God did not create from nothing

-57 · Monday at 12:24 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I didn't say He wasn't involved. We can infer that God may have been directly involved in the writing of Genesis if we want to, but that doesn't mean we know 'how' and to what extent He may have shaped the final resulting book that we now have, nor does it mean we know 'how' God created the world. All we have are ancient narratives that the ancient Hebrews would have generally understood in terms of their own day, terms that provide ancients contexts which all too often remain unknown or ignored.

God was directly involved with writing Genesis...

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 12:38 PM

-57 said:
God was directly involved with writing Genesis...

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

That doesn't address what I said in my previous post. And while I respect your quote, I don't think 2 Timothy 3:16 actually does the heavy epistemological and explanatory lifting that you think it does.

Platte · Monday at 12:47 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Why would I believe any of that?

To begin, It is the Truth and you are a Truth seeker and second Jesus is who he said he was - the Light of the World. Jesus lived during a time on Earth where basically God was only known by the Jews. The Greeks had their Zeus and Apollo's, the Egyptinos ahs their Isis & Osiris, etc....All religions had many Gods.

Well Jesus was the Light - now the whole world knows of God....

AV1611VET · Monday at 12:48 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I didn't say He wasn't involved. We can infer that God may have been directly involved in the writing of Genesis if we want to, but that doesn't mean we know 'how' and to what extent He may have shaped the final resulting book that we now have, nor does it mean we know 'how' God created the world. All we have are ancient narratives that the ancient Hebrews would have generally understood in terms of their own day, terms that provide ancients contexts which all too often remain unknown or ignored.

Wife and I just finished a conference.

In that conference, we learned that Adam & Eve, who were made overseers of God's creation, would have had full access to God's knowledge about everything from astronomy to zoology by simply asking God about it.

But the Tempter came along and told Eve that both she and Adam could be "as gods, knowing good and evil."

In other words, they wouldn't have to rely on God for their vast knowledge; they could learn to use their own intellect and empirical senses to acquire knowledge by themselves.

And the rest is history.

Platte · Monday at 12:50 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I didn't say He wasn't involved. We can infer that God may have been directly involved in the writing of Genesis if we want to, but that doesn't mean we know 'how' and to what extent He may have shaped the final resulting book that we now have, nor does it mean we know 'how' God created the world. All we have are ancient narratives that the ancient Hebrews would have generally understood in terms of their own day, terms that provide ancients contexts which all too often remain unknown or ignored.

When God sent His son to die for us - He also said He was directly involved in our Salvation. I think with confidence you can say that God was directly invovled with the message of Genesis and that He gave the Creation account to Moses.

-57 · Monday at 12:52 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
That doesn't address what I said in my previous post. And while I respect your quote, I don't think 2 Timothy 3:16 actually does the heavy epistemological and explanatory lifting that you think it does.

What part would you like me to address?
All I did was point out God had an involvement in the writing of Genesis.
It is true we don't know 'how' and to what extent He may have shaped the final resulting book that we now have.

One thing we do know is that God through Moses told us that He formed Adam from the dust the Eve from Adams rib. We can know God didn't create us through the process of evolutionism......Or, one can choose not to believe what Genesis says. Turn Gen 1, 2 and 3 into an allegorical story interpreted upon what people think the allegory represents.

AV1611VET · Monday at 12:53 PM

Platte said:
When God sent His son to die for us - He also said He was directly involved in our Salvation. I think with confidence you can say that God was directly invovled with the message of Genesis and that He gave the Creation account to Moses.

The Old Testament saints were saved by looking forward to the Cross; whereas New Testament saints are saved by looking backwards at it.

2PhiloVoid · Monday at 1:02 PM

-57 said:
What part would you like me to address?
All I did was point out God had an involvement in the writing of Genesis.
It is true we don't know 'how' and to what extent He may have shaped the final resulting book that we now have.

One thing we do know is that God through Moses told us that He formed Adam from the dust the Eve from Adams rib. We can know God didn't create us through the process of evolutionism......Or, one can choose not to believe what Genesis says. Turn Gen 1, 2 and 3 into an allegorical story interpreted upon what people think the allegory represents.

Y'know, you, @Platte, and @AV1611VET all seem to consistently miss the point of whatever I say. It's almost like............you're not even understanding the words I'm writing on the page.

So, since I didn't sign up with CF nearly two decades ago just to stumble around trying to preach to the choir since you all already have Jesus, I see no need to continue any dialogue in this thread.

Y'all have a blessed day!

Hans Blaster · Monday at 1:16 PM

Platte said:
To begin, It is the Truth and you are a Truth seeker

Capitalizing truth doesn't make it actual so. I see little "truth" in the bible, especially in the NT.

Platte said:
and second Jesus is who he said he was - the Light of the World.

Which is a claim, not evidence.

Platte said:
Jesus lived during a time on Earth where basically God was only known by the Jews. The Greeks had their Zeus and Apollo's, the Egyptinos ahs their Isis & Osiris, etc....All religions had many Gods.

Well Jesus was the Light - now the whole world knows of God....

I really wish you guys would keep that to yourselves. A basket would work well.

Lost Witness · Monday at 1:29 PM

-57 said:
to what extent He may have shaped the final resulting book that we now have.

All of it.
He’s absolutely sovereign.
Romans 8:28 literally means everything.
Everything.

Platte · Monday at 1:35 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Capitalizing truth doesn't make it actual so. I see little "truth" in the bible, especially in the NT.

Which is a claim, not evidence.

I really wish you guys would keep that to yourselves. A basket would work well.

Correct Jesus (the Bible) claimed he was the Light of the World - that people would know God through Him.

The fact that the whole world knows God now (through Jesus) - is evidence that his claim (the Bible) is true. I mean cmon - think about it - how many people have their been in the world - obviously Billions....and the world knows God because of Jesus (not because of anyone else)- and Jesus was the one who said the world would know God because of him...and it actually happens - Jesus really was the Light of the World as he claimed.

Just another coincidence to you I'm sure - sounds like your whole world is becoming full of them.

sjastro · Monday at 1:42 PM

-57 said:
You seem to present AI as the end of discussions.

Key problems and limitations of isochron dating.....according to AI

Open-system behavior (loss/gain of parent or daughter isotopes) — if a sample or its minerals exchangedisotopes with fluids or other reservoirs after formation, the isochron slope/line can be altered and giveincorrect ages.

Initial daughter heterogeneity — isochron assumes all samples started with the same initialdaughter/parent ratio; if that isn’t true, the line may be spurious and age incorrect.

Alteration/metamorphism — recrystallization, weathering, or metamorphic events can reset or partiallyreset isotopic systems, producing mixed ages or disturbed isochrons.

Analytical errors and scatter — measurement uncertainties, low precision for small isotope amounts, andcorrelated errors can produce scatter that masks a true line or yields an inaccurate slope.

Low radiogenic daughter content (low radiogenic growth) — when daughter isotopes produced sinceformation are a small fraction of the total, the isochron slope is poorly constrained and age uncertainty islarge.

Mixing of distinct sources — mixing of two or more components with different compositions can produce alinear array that mimics an isochron but represents mixing, not closed-system radioactive decay (falseisochron).

Inappropriate sample selection — using samples from different petrogenetic histories or too few spread inparent/daughter ratios reduces reliability.

Incompatible mineral phases and diffusion — some minerals retain isotopes poorly (fast diffusion), so theirapparent ages may reflect closure at different times.

Dependence on decay constants and system choice — uncertainties in decay constants or using aninappropriate isotopic system for the sample’s age/conditions can bias results.

Correlated geochemical processes — fractionation or alteration that affects parent and daughter similarlycan hide disturbances and still produce an apparently good line with a misleading age.

What has this got to do with Gentry's polonium halos leads to the nonsensical conclusion granite was created instantly???

You are going around in circles and back to isochron testing.
As I pointed out isochron testing serves two purposes, to date samples according to the slope of the isochron line and any points that deviate from the line cannot be trusted for the reasons highlighted by your AI response.
This includes being able to differentiate a 'mixing line' from an isochron line.

The obvious question which arises is how does one know when all the conditions mentioned in your AI response do not occur.
Answer test samples to different dating methods.

Since granite is a key to Gentry's nonsense here are various tests done on granite sampled from Bottle Lake in Maine.

Method	Sample	Age (Ma)
Rb-Sr whole-rock isochron	Whitney Cove pluton	379 ± 5
Rb-Sr whole-rock isochron	Passadumkeag River pluton	381 ± 4
K-Ar biotite	Whitney Cove pluton	377–379
^40Ar/^39Ar hornblende	Passadumkeag River pluton	378 ± 4
U-Pb zircon (after excluding problematic finest zircon fraction)	Passadumkeag River pluton	381 ± 3

Comparative geochronology in the reversely zoned plutons of the Bottle Lake Complex, Maine: U-Pb on zircons and Rb-Sr on whole rocks

The Bottle Lake Complex is a composite granitic batholith emplaced into Cambrian to Lower Devonian metasedimentary rocks. Both plutons (Whitney Cove and Passadumkeag River) are very coarse grained hornblende and biotite-bearing granites showing petrographic and geochemical reverse zonation. Two...

www.usgs.gov

It is very difficult to explain how four different dating methods would give the wrong age of similar magnitude.

This leads to another point your arguments like those given by creationist sites are based on the false dichotomy fallacy.
Even if all dating methods were found to be wrong it does not lead to the conclusion the Earth must be 6000 years old.

Hans Blaster · Monday at 1:43 PM

Platte said:
Correct Jesus (the Bible) claimed he was the Light of the World - that people would know God through Him.

You already said that, I didn't. Nor do I concur. I do not hold a high opinion of Jesus of Nazareth, but the powers that be would prefer I not clarify it (lest they suspend my posting privileges.)

Platte said:
The fact that the whole world knows God now (through Jesus) - is evidence that his claim (the Bible) is true. I mean cmon - think about it - how many people have their been in the world - obviously Billions....and the world knows God because of Jesus (not because of anyone else)- and Jesus was the one who said the world would know God because of him...and it actually happens - Jesus really was the Light of the World as he claimed.

This is just the weakest of all of the thin sauces that make up apologetics. You can stop now. This is not a place for apologetics. (see statement of purpose on the page for this sub-forum)

Platte said:
Just another coincidence to you I'm sure - sounds like your whole world is becoming full of them.

Do you think I didn't know about how everyone (nearly) had heard of Jesus when I stopped finding your book plausible? Have a little self-respect.

AV1611VET · Monday at 1:44 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Y'know, you, @Platte, and @AV1611VET all seem to consistently miss the point of whatever I say. It's almost like............you're not even understanding the words I'm writing on the page.

-- Wow!

I just went through a game of Simon™ with another poster in this thread.

Now you know how I feel.

Platte · Monday at 1:47 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
Y'know, you, @Platte, and @AV1611VET all seem to consistently miss the point of whatever I say. It's almost like............you're not even understanding the words I'm writing on the page.

So, since I didn't sign up with CF nearly two decades ago just to stumble around trying to preach to the choir since you all already have Jesus, I see no need to continue any dialogue in this thread.

Y'all have a blessed day!

I enjoy the conversations - but I got people here posting comments about the Bible - like its simply some ancient text. This book is real - and it was shaped and crafted by the Creator. I say - just take the message that the Bible says, as it was written that way for a purpose. Then make your arguments from there. For example - I dont argue that the world is or isnt billions of years old....just like I don't argue if you say Adam was 21 years old when created. All I can tell you is, it was Created as it is today (basically). What we are seeing is basically exactly the way the earth was created. Not much has changed in 6000 year.

Platte · Monday at 1:52 PM

Hans Blaster said:
You already said that, I didn't. Nor do I concur. I do not hold a high opinion of Jesus of Nazareth, but the powers that be would prefer I not clarify it (lest they suspend my posting privileges.)

This is just the weakest of all of the thin sauces that make up apologetics. You can stop now. This is not a place for apologetics. (see statement of purpose on the page for this sub-forum)

Do you think I didn't know about how everyone (nearly) had heard of Jesus when I stopped finding your book plausible? Have a little self-respect.

I don't offer apologetics - and I don't like apologetics....I went to an apologetic mecca (Liberty University)....I honestly cringe at apologetics - sorry William Lane Craig.

I simply offered you evidence - The most prominent claim Jesus made was He was the Light of the World - well was he? Hell yeah he was!
When you make a statement and it becomes true - that is evidence that you are who you say you are.

partinobodycular · Monday at 1:52 PM

AV1611VET said:
I just went through a game of Simon™ with another poster in this thread.

Now you know how I feel.

Being unfamiliar with the game, would it be possible for you to clarify what that statement means.

partinobodycular · Monday at 1:54 PM

Platte said:
I simply offered you evidence - The most prominent claim Jesus made was He was the Light of the World - well was he? Hell yeah he was!
When you make a statement and it becomes true - that is evidence that you are who you say you are.

In what way is it true?

AV1611VET · Monday at 1:57 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Capitalizing truth doesn't make it actual so.

No argument there.

Hans Blaster said:
I see little "truth" in the bible, especially in the NT.

You have to know what you're looking for.

Hans Blaster said:
Which is a claim, not evidence.

The quality went in before the name went on.

He who claimed it, demonstrated His claims so effectively, it blind-sided academia.

Hans Blaster said:
I really wish you guys would keep that to yourselves. A basket would work well.

I'll use Jesus' argument.

Lu 20:24 Shew me a penny.

Whose superscription is on it?

Do you tell everyone at the counter or drive-thru to "keep the change"?

AV1611VET · Monday at 2:01 PM

partinobodycular said:
Being unfamiliar with the game, would it be possible for you to clarify what that statement means.

Did you miss Post 343 ?

God did not create from nothing

Well-Known Member

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Reconstruction 3 will come

Ezekiel 3:3 ("Change")

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Reconstruction 3 will come

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads