God did not create from nothing

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-06-12T10:25:11-0500

Platte said:
The dating of Göbekli Tepe is not factual (it is the best guess that science can do with the tools at its disposal) is what I was pointing out.

But it's NOT a best guess, and you have no substantive and solid reason for saying that it's a best guess except that you don't accept it on a religious reason.

If you just accept that simple fact of logic; that all your problems are not scientific and purely religious on your end, no-one would be giving you the guff you're getting now. But since you keep insisting on doing this scientifically, with people who definitely know more than you on the subject, it's no wonder you're getting all this guff.

Hans Blaster · 2026-06-12T10:49:43-0500

Platte said:
2026 research method

It's not a research method. It is a delusional search engine.

Platte said:
if the tree were 2000

You need to cope harder. That doesn't get you to 6000 years ago and why would a new tree by 2000 years old?

Platte said:
@dlamberth

We are not all the same - I'm a black and white type of person - Yes I have my faith in God....but I'm a show me the facts type of person.
I don't quote things as fact if they are not.

Creation occured 6000 year ago and took 6 days - that is not my opinion - that is what the Bible says. The Bible in general is absolutely not fact - Salvation is NOT fact. Creation is not FACT. The Big bang is not FACT - Scientific dates are NOT facts. Evolution is NOT fact.

The whole premise of Christianity is that it is NOT fact....but it is what I believe and it is where my faith lies. My belief and faith is based on my recognition that the Bible is true (and that its the Word of God) and my observation and opinion in what the Bible says.

Belief in God is based on ones thoughts about life - Did is just happen by chance - or Did God create it. I accept God created it. Dating methods that are not factual and/or inherent with error - I would never use to disprove the Bible. There is much about science that is real - and factual - there is also much about science that is based on unverified assumptions.

Your black and white thinking is not compatible with reality or existence in the real world. How do you survive?

Platte said:
The dating of Göbekli Tepe is not factual (it is the best guess that science can do with the tools at its disposal) is what I was pointing out.

You keep making these "factual" claims with no evidence to back it, no demonstrated expertise, and just your determined "Age of Earth = 6000 years" position.

People wonder why we don't take YECers seriously, you are demonstrating that quite clearly.

dlamberth · 2026-06-12T11:16:15-0500

Platte said:
The dating of Göbekli Tepe is not factual (it is the best guess that science can do with the tools at its disposal) is what I was pointing out.

Would you go as far as agreeing that it is factual that Göbekli Tepe is older than 6000 years old?

AV1611VET · 2026-06-12T11:35:40-0500

Hans Blaster said:
People wonder why we don't take YECers seriously, you are demonstrating that quite clearly.

Who specifically do you guys take seriously?

AV1611VET · 2026-06-12T11:47:59-0500

dlamberth said:
Would you go as far as agreeing that it is factual that Göbekli Tepe is older than 6000 years old?

I would.

Why not?

Notice something interesting here?

Göbekli Tepe:

Stonehenge:

Ex 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Ya think they're trying to tell us something?

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-06-12T11:52:33-0500

AV1611VET said:
Ya think they're trying to tell us something?

That stacking two long stones upright and putting another stone on top is not that hard a shape to make and is pretty universal?

sjastro · 2026-06-12T11:56:50-0500

Platte said:
Regardless of what you think - The speed of light has never been tested or verified. We do not know the one-way speed of light. Its that simple and there is no argument against what I am saying. because I am stating fact.

@Hans Blaster said it best "...it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light"

Unbelievable and you wonder why I dispute your self inflated view of your intellectual capabilities.
I have also stated it is impossible to measure the one-way speed.
Was my explanation beyond your intellectual capabilities?
Clearly you have zero comprehension of your AI references regarding Einstein's assertions on the subject, so let me try to give you a simple example that even you will hopefully comprehend.

I'm sure you have heard of solar flares which are composed of electromagnetic energy and particles.
Agencies issue warnings that highly energetic flares can disrupt communications on Earth.

Suppose a flare is emitted at 12.00.00 as recorded by a clock on the Sun and the electromagnetic component reaches the Earth at 12.08.19.
The average Sun/Earth distance ≈ 149,597,870,700 m.
The speed at which the flare reaches the Earth is ≈ 149,597,870,000/499 ≈ 299,792,498 m/s which is the speed of light.
This based on the Einstein convention of having the clocks synchronised where the one-way and two way speeds of light are the same.

Now let's suppose the clocks on the Sun and Earth are out of synch by 60 s where the Sun emits the flare at 12.00.00 but reaches Earth at 12.09.19.
The one-way speed of light is now ≈ 149,597,870,700/559 ≈ 267,617,000 m/s.
This is a convention as well, I have decided to have my clocks out of synch by 60 s which results in a one way speed of 267,617,000 m/s.
Everything remains the same the arrival time subtracting out the synch error is 559 - 60 = 499 s, the Sun/Earth distance remains the same, as do the laws of physics.
In the terminology of special relativity you can choose any out of synch error which represents a change in coordinates but the laws of physics remains the same. This is clearly beyond your ability to grasp given the nonsense you spout about an ambiguous one-way speed of light impacts on physics and leads to a 6000 year old creation by default.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-12T12:04:13-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
That stacking two long stones upright and putting another stone on top is not that hard a shape to make and is pretty universal?

Like the Gospel?

Not too hard to understand and is pretty universal?

Lu 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-06-12T12:21:04-0500

AV1611VET said:
Like the Gospel?

Not too hard to understand and is pretty universal?

Lu 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

I was going to say "What does that have to do with the fact that many cultures across the world have historically stacked stones like at Gobekli Tepe and Stonehenge?" and the picture you used for Gobekli Tepe finally loaded (my internet is not playing nice today), and it's not even stacked stones but standing stones. Something INFINITELY easier to do than stacking them.

Your comment is still intrinsically pointless though.

AV1611VET · 2026-06-12T12:32:30-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I was going to say "What does that have to do with the fact that many cultures across the world have historically stacked stones like at Gobekli Tepe and Stonehenge?"

Probably for the same reason many countries of the world have God in their national anthems and/or a cross on their flag.

They felt compelled in spirit to do so.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... and the picture you used for Gobekli Tepe finally loaded (my internet is not playing nice today),

Sorry to hear that.

I hope it speeds up.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... and it's not even stacked stones but standing stones.

So?

Stacked stones, standing stones, the image is the same.

It's basic typology.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Something INFINITELY easier to do than stacking them.

Good.

It was even easier in Egypt, where they already had the posts.

But these stone temples were made by people who went out of their way to make them.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your comment is still intrinsically pointless though.

Think Typology 101.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-06-12T12:39:47-0500

AV1611VET said:
Probably for the same reason many countries of the world have God in their national anthems and/or a cross on their flag.

They felt compelled in spirit to do so.

You've got no idea of the spread of Christianity in history, have you?

AV1611VET said:
Sorry to hear that.

I hope it speeds up.

I'm playing it by ear.

AV1611VET said:
So?

Stacked stones, standing stones, the image is the same.

It's basic typology.

It's not really the same, nor is it typology.

AV1611VET said:
Good.

It was even easier in Egypt, where they already had the posts.

But these stone temples were made by people who went out of their way to make them.

Yes, because they had their own religious practices that came long before Christianity arrived in their regions, or in the case of Gobekli Tepe, Zoroastrianism (which came first before Islam in Turkey and Turkic cultures).

Again, learn history.

AV1611VET said:
Think Typology 101.

Or rather, learn about the Old World religions that existed before Christianity arrived. We have no idea what the religious beliefs of those who made Gobekli Tepe would have been, but here's one linking to Stonehenge; look up British Celts.

Platte · 2026-06-12T12:45:08-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
I don't think there is a "great difference" theologically between our views of the book of Genesis. The only actual difference is in the way we conceptualize the nature of its historiographical development (i.e. how it was written), but there's not so much difference between us in how we conceive of its overall purpose of conveying Salvation History.

But yeah, the main difference between us is methodological, not theological. You start with the Bible and then attempt to deduce how the structure and history of the world must be to 'fit' with the Bible. I, on the other hand, begin with an existential position of looking out into a forlorn, dark and confusing world of human knowledge that just so happens to also have a Bible floating freely within it.

So, I do the hopeful thing: I engage it critically, academically and fairly, which means I start not with the bible itself but with something more like The Princeton Guide to Historical Research by Zachary M. Scharg (among many others) and go from there..............................

............. and I still come to a similar conclusion about the Bible's overall purpose as you do after all of that.

The gate is narrow....but the road is wide!

Platte · 2026-06-12T12:48:24-0500

dlamberth said:
Would you go as far as agreeing that it is factual that Göbekli Tepe is older than 6000 years old?

No its not...Didn't Noah make that?

2PhiloVoid · 2026-06-12T12:49:26-0500

Platte said:
The gate is narrow....but the road is wide!

Yes, the gate (which is Jesus Christ) is the only Way. I agree.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-06-12T12:51:37-0500

Platte said:
No its not...Didn't Noak make that?

Nope.

Platte · 2026-06-12T12:51:49-0500

sjastro said:
Unbelievable and you wonder why I dispute your self inflated view of your intellectual capabilities.
I have also stated it is impossible to measure the one-way speed.
Was my explanation beyond your intellectual capabilities?
Clearly you have zero comprehension of your AI references regarding Einstein's assertions on the subject, so let me try to give you a simple example that even you will hopefully comprehend.

I'm sure you have heard of solar flares which are composed of electromagnetic energy and particles.
Agencies issue warnings that highly energetic flares can disrupt communications on Earth.

Suppose a flare is emitted at 12.00.00 as recorded by a clock on the Sun and the electromagnetic component reaches the Earth at 12.08.19.
The average Sun/Earth distance ≈ 149,597,870,700 m.
The speed at which the flare reaches the Earth is ≈ 149,597,870,000/499 ≈ 299,792,498 m/s which is the speed of light.
This based on the Einstein convention of having the clocks synchronised where the one-way and two way speeds of light are the same.

Now let's suppose the clocks on the Sun and Earth are out of synch by 60 s where the Sun emits the flare at 12.00.00 but reaches Earth at 12.09.19.
The one-way speed of light is now ≈ 149,597,870,700/559 ≈ 267,617,000 m/s.
This is a convention as well, I have decided to have my clocks out of synch by 60 s which results in a one way speed of 267,617,000 m/s.
Everything remains the same the arrival time subtracting out the synch error is 559 - 60 = 499 s, the Sun/Earth distance remains the same, as do the laws of physics.
In the terminology of special relativity you can choose any out of synch error which represents a change in coordinates but the laws of physics remains the same. This is clearly beyond your ability to grasp given the nonsense you spout about an ambiguous one-way speed of light impacts on physics and leads to a 6000 year old creation by default.

little man, You do realize that you would need to know the speed of light beforehand in order for that to work.

Platte · 2026-06-12T12:53:40-0500

Hans Blaster said:
It's not a research method. It is a delusional search engine.

You need to cope harder. That doesn't get you to 6000 years ago and why would a new tree by 2000 years old?

Your black and white thinking is not compatible with reality or existence in the real world. How do you survive?

You keep making these "factual" claims with no evidence to back it, no demonstrated expertise, and just your determined "Age of Earth = 6000 years" position.

People wonder why we don't take YECers seriously, you are demonstrating that quite clearly.

C14 is science fiction and not a valid dating method. While others call is junk science - I simply say science fiction

AV1611VET · 2026-06-12T12:55:11-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You've got no idea of the spread of Christianity in history, have you?

Do you?

Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Acts 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It's not really the same, nor is it typology.

What's that saying about a river in Egypt?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Yes, because they had their own religious practices that came long before Christianity arrived in their regions, or in the case of Gobekli Tepe, Zoroastrianism (which came first before Islam in Turkey and Turkic cultures).

I'm talking about OLD TESTAMENT typology that is foreshadowing the cross.

When they put the blood on the doorposts and upper posts, it was symbolic of the cross.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Again, learn history.

Again, learn Typology 101.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Or rather, learn about the Old World religions that existed before Christianity arrived.

I'm familiar with most of the mainline ones.

Tares among the wheat.

They were even bringing "Old World religions" right into the Temple in Ezekiel's time.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
We have no idea what the religious beliefs of those who made Gobekli Tepe would have been,

What does it remind you of though?

All you may see is stacked and standing stones.

I see edifices that testify of Jesus Christ.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... but here's one linking to Stonehenge; look up British Celts.

I'm somewhat familiar with Great Britain's indigenous people, with their Druid priests.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-06-12T13:09:51-0500

AV1611VET said:
Do you?

I would definitely say more than you.

AV1611VET said:
What's that saying about a river in Egypt?

Takes one to know one.

AV1611VET said:
I'm talking about OLD TESTAMENT typology that is foreshadowing the cross.

When they put the blood on the doorposts and upper posts, it was symbolic of the cross.

Yes... and has nothing at all to do with the stones at Gobekli Tepe or Stonehenge, which is you putting the religious cart before the historical horse.

AV1611VET said:
Again, learn Typology 101.

But you do such a good job at teaching! /s

AV1611VET said:
I'm familiar with most of the mainline ones.

Tares among the wheat.

They were even bringing "Old World religions" right into the Temple in Ezekiel's time.

Sure, sure...

AV1611VET said:
What does it remind you of though?

All you may see is stacked and standing stones.

I see edifices that testify of Jesus Christ.

Well, when all you have is a hammer...

AV1611VET said:
I'm somewhat familiar with Great Britain's indigenous people, with their Druid priests.

Then you'd know that they'd existed for a good thousands of years before Christianity came to Britain by way of the Roman conquerors after the Christianization of Rome.

Not that you care, Mr. "Adam, Eve, Noah and all his sons spoke Jacobean English up until the Tower of Babel".

dlamberth · 2026-06-12T13:56:26-0500

Platte said:
No its not...Didn't Noah make that?

If Noah built Göbekli Tepe, shouldn't the site than be sacred to Christians?

If I'm understanding correctly, your thinking that Göbekli Tepe was built roughly 4500 years ago, or something like that for when Noah is said to have lived. That's a pretty big difference from the dating that the various testing like radiocarbon dating, stratigraphy analysis and lithic analysis comes up with. Do you actually beleve that archaeology dating methonds are that useless? Would you say the same when the exact same dating methods are used with Biblical sites?

God did not create from nothing

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Senior Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Perceiving the Bigger Picture

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Similar threads