Creation Challenge: Refute it

[Professor]

Genesis 1:1 clearly says heavens and the earth. This would include water, and all the properties and substance of every element. Day 1.

Yes, but that is not day 1.

 

[Professor]

...I'm done arguing with you...

Saves me from reading foolish arguments that are not consistent with Scripture.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Saves me from reading foolish arguments that are not consistent with Scripture.

Funny how I quote scripture and you quote gravity formulae and chemical composition. Anyways, have a good one.

 

[GBTG]

You cannot contest the conclusions based on alternative premises. The question is whether conclusions are valid based on the given premises. My challenge was to refute my conclusions based on the premises. As I stated, I will debate my conclusions, not the premises. That would be a completely different thread.

The answer then is NO. Your premise is invalid because it is derived from an illogical conclusion. This is like stating 1+ green = butterfly, prove me wrong! You posted this as a challenge, you are foolhardy, and dogmatic about your correctness. I believe this is a perfect example of "It is better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt". Many of us gave honest critical feed back which is what you appeared to ask for, until you started responding. I matter-of-factly asked if you are just trolling and I think that is still a very strong possibility. I asked about a black hole (singularity) and asked how this affected TIME in relation to an observer (the theory of relativity). I also stated that this was posed as a scientific dispute per your request. Your response was about matter and when black holes were created. You did not understand the question, or you do not want to engage in any logical argument that demonstrates the flaws previously stated about the paper. In either case I have to ask myself, in what field of academia are you a "professor"? If you would like to actually have a beneficial dialogue a little humility would go along way!

Regards, GBTG

 

[Denadii]

"The Beginning and the End: A Commentary: Part I - The Beginning" The Beginning and the End: A Commentary. Part I - The Beginning by Wm. Huber :: SSRN. (Draft)

The challenge: Refute it using only the Bible and logic. No "could haves," "maybes," "possiblies," "perhapses," etc.

You know, of course, what commentaries are...They are simply opinions of the writer, about what God says...They are not necessarily correct but the writers attempt, many times, to tell God what He meant.

 

[Professor]

Sorry for the late reply. Time pressures, you know. (Not that you mind anyway. )

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Literal interpretation specifically shows 1000 years is as a day, and a day is a thousand years. Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. 2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [close]

While a day may be 1,000 years, and is an arguable alternative interpretation, that is not literal since it says morning and evening were the first day. Seven consecutive days is neither supported nor required by the language.

[snipped]

In the scope of the creation account, the fact that the two great lights are set in their course to govern and rule the course of the day and night according to how they were made. Day and night as a concept was made on the first day. [close]

You contradict yourself. If day and night as a concept was made on the first day, then a day is not 1,000 years. You can’t have it both ways.

Yes, heaven and earth is the whole universe—prior to day 1 as I have provided evidence for and have yet to see any refutation. Merely quoting Scripture is not a refutation. You must analyze the language, apply logic, engage in exegesis, and compare Scripture with Scripture.

Nothing you assert or imagine can change the fact that water existed prior to “let there be light.” And refuting that requires an analysis, not just Bible quotes in isolation, which I have yet to see.

[snipped]

 

[Professor]

The answer then is NO. Your premise is invalid because it is derived from an illogical conclusion. This is like stating 1+ green = butterfly, prove me wrong! [close]

What premise are you saying I derived from a conclusion? Apparently you do not know the relationship between a premise and a conclusion. You don’t derive a premise from a conclusion.

You posted this as a challenge, you are foolhardy, and dogmatic about your correctness. I believe this is a perfect example of "It is better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt". Many of us gave honest critical feed back which is what you appeared to ask for, until you started responding. I matter-of-factly asked if you are just trolling and I think that is still a very strong possibility. [close]

No, neither you nor anyone else has provided any critical feedback. All you have done is make unsupportable assertions; quote Scripture that has no relevance to creation, or provided any logical argument to counter mine, particularly since you admit you have not read the entire paper.

Scripture states water existed before “let there be light.” Neither you nor anyone else have proven otherwise. You have merely made ridiculous assertions that the water that existed prior to “let there be light” was actually created after “let there be light.” That denies the clear revelation of Genesis. You can’t make the Bible say what you wish it said, no matter how hard you try.

If it says it existed before day 1, then it existed before day 1. Plain and simple. Period exclamation point. Now, you must prove it didn’t, not engage in smoke-and-mirror interpretation.

I am not interested in what you think is a "strong possibility." By all accounts, your arguing about something you have not read strongly suggests trolling, and is at least uninformed. You ought to quit being so dogmatic and try to learn something that challenges your intellect and your spirit.

I asked about a black hole (singularity) and asked how this affected TIME in relation to an observer (the theory of relativity). I also stated that this was posed as a scientific dispute per your request. Your response was about matter and when black holes were created. You did not understand the question, or you do not want to engage in any logical argument that demonstrates the flaws previously stated about the paper. [close]

Apparently I did not understand the meaning of your question. Since we are discussing creation and time of creation the question about black holes and time would only be meaningful in that context. So what are you asking about black holes, time, and relativity if not in the context of creation? My request pertained only to science in the context of creation, so your point in asking the question outside of the context or creation escapes me. Can you actually stay on topic-creation?

In either case I have to ask myself, in what field of academia are you a "professor"? If you would like to actually have a beneficial dialogue a little humility would go along way![close]

If by “beneficial dialog” you mean you expect me to be convinced by and agree with your superfluous arguments, then dialog will not be beneficial. But if you humble yourself perhaps you can actually learn something and put away childish things.

Regards, GBTG

 

[Professor]

Funny how I quote scripture and you quote gravity formulae and chemical composition. Anyways, have a good one.

Funny how you misquote me, I correct you, and you ignore correction.

Yes, have a good one. Catch you on the other side.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Sorry for the late reply. Time pressures, you know. (Not that you mind anyway. )

I don't contradict myself, I just state what is in the Bible. (paraphrasing) It says a day and a thousand years are the same with the Lord. so 1 day = 1000 years. Numbers are in order, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Hence sequential.
And again your suggesting that heaven and earth were created prior to day 1, is unbiblical. There is no day 0.
Your argument is reading like this::
On Day 0, prior to creating the heavens and the earth, God created the heavens and the earth.
and all the elements that were used in creation, were made prior to them being made.
On Day 1, he uses said elements in a big chili pot and stirs pot, and sets them in motion.

I am saying:
There is no Day 0. Nothing is created prior to it being created. No water, no earth, no heavens.
There is no pre-Genesis where he is creating the earth and waters and heavens.
On Day 1, he creates the heavens and the earth, and all the elements thereof, and begins his work.

There is a reason why it is not said "Let there be light" until Genesis 1:3.
"Let there be light" was not the first creative act. God does not need to tell you how he did it, but he does divulge the fact that he did, and that it occurred on Day 1.
If it happened on a "Day 0", then that would be "Day 1" wouldn't it? And creation would have been 8 days and not 7. The days are relative to creation itself.
This line of thinking would bring you to conclude, that there is a Day -1, Day -2, Day -3, Day -4, etc. When it clearly shows in Scriptures with the evening/morning cycle that evening and morning are how the days are defined. Thus a day does not have 15 evenings. It only has one. There are not 366 mornings in one day. There is just one. There would be no evening and morning of day 0. Therefore, no day 0.

Here is what it comes down to:
You presume that the waters in Genesis 1:2 existed PRIOR to Genesis 1:1. Unsupported by scriptures. Day 0.
I gather that the waters in Genesis 1:2 were made DURING Genesis 1:1. Supported by Scriptures. Day 1.
Thus our impasse.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Funny how you misquote me, I correct you, and you ignore correction.

Yes, have a good one. Catch you on the other side.

is not both of your attachments of Isaac Newton's Formula for the Force of Gravity?
Creation Challenge: Refute it
Then in your paper, you break apart the molecules for water H20 and salt water NCl when referencing sea creatures.
Hence, you are quoting gravity formulae, and chemical composition.
How am I misquoting you?

 

[Denadii]

I don't contradict myself, I just state what is in the Bible. (paraphrasing) It says a day and a thousand years are the same with the Lord. so 1 day = 1000 years. Numbers are in order, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Hence sequential.
And again your suggesting that heaven and earth were created prior to day 1, is unbiblical. There is no day 0.
Your argument is reading like this::
On Day 0, prior to creating the heavens and the earth, God created the heavens and the earth.
and all the elements that were used in creation, were made prior to them being made.
On Day 1, he uses said elements in a big chili pot and stirs pot, and sets them in motion.

I am saying:
There is no Day 0. Nothing is created prior to it being created. No water, no earth, no heavens.
There is no pre-Genesis where he is creating the earth and waters and heavens.
On Day 1, he creates the heavens and the earth, and all the elements thereof, and begins his work.

There is a reason why it is not said "Let there be light" until Genesis 1:3.
"Let there be light" was not the first creative act. God does not need to tell you how he did it, but he does divulge the fact that he did, and that it occurred on Day 1.
If it happened on a "Day 0", then that would be "Day 1" wouldn't it? And creation would have been 8 days and not 7. The days are relative to creation itself.
This line of thinking would bring you to conclude, that there is a Day -1, Day -2, Day -3, Day -4, etc. When it clearly shows in Scriptures with the evening/morning cycle that evening and morning are how the days are defined. Thus a day does not have 15 evenings. It only has one. There are not 366 mornings in one day. There is just one. There would be no evening and morning of day 0. Therefore, no day 0.

Here is what it comes down to:
You presume that the waters in Genesis 1:2 existed PRIOR to Genesis 1:1. Unsupported by scriptures. Day 0.
I gather that the waters in Genesis 1:2 were made DURING Genesis 1:1. Supported by Scriptures. Day 1.
Thus our impasse.

I surely would appreciate you showing us exactly where God created the Earth....Why? Because what you said is Wrong.

 

[Ronald]

is not both of your attachments of Isaac Newton's Formula for the Force of Gravity?
Creation Challenge: Refute it
Then in your paper, you break apart the molecules for water H20 and salt water NCl when referencing sea creatures.
Hence, you are quoting gravity formulae, and chemical composition.
How am I misquoting you?

I have to say, you are a patient person and write excellent posts as well. I kind of wish I would have read them first, I wouldn't have had to labor with mine.
Sometimes we face division in life even among believers. It is sad to be divided on Biblical issues. I'm afraid that Darwin had a lot to do with this theistic evolution view ( not that we got that far), but it all starts with challenging our origins. They first must distort the words, like day, to mean something else, or turn it into an allegory, not to be taken literally. Once they agree with that, then they attempt to tell us how it really began and fill in the details for God. They are nothing but revisionists. Once they accomplish distorting Genesis and practically recruiting half of Christianity to except their logic, then they move on to other doctrines and unfortunately attempt to distort Jesus Himself. They sift the Bible through their scientific filter and finite minds and what comes out is equivalent to natural selection, choosing beneficial mutations that evolve into reality. The spiritual realm is the true reality that we are destined for.
Being a Christian is to be in Christ, like minded, but the flesh still has sin that wars against the harmony among us.
Take care, God Bless.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I surely would appreciate you showing us exactly where God created the Earth....Why? Because what you said is Wrong.

Genesis 1:1

 

[Denadii]

Genesis 1:1

So God created the Heavens and the Earth.....The Earth becomes without form and void...Then comes day one.
So then....The Earth was created before day one. Contrary to what you said above. What happened there?

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

So God created the Heavens and the Earth.....The Earth becomes without form and void...Then comes day one.
So then....The Earth was created before day one. Contrary to what you said above. What happened there?

He created the heavens and earth on day 1. That's why "in the beginning" is included in the verse, "in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth". day 1 was the beginning. That is what first means. It means it came before all other days. Day 0 was not first, Day 1 was first. As I said, there was no Day 0. That is why evening was first , then morning.
Day 0 requires a morning to be first, then the evening for the completion of a day.
Whereas the Bible, having evening first, then morning as the complete day, supersedes this.
The earth didn't become without form and void, it was created not having form, and void. The subsequent events gave it form, such as Genesis 1:2, where we see the Spirit of God moving over the face of the waters.
But Genesis 1:1-5 are all about Day 1. The first two verses are talking about the heavens and the earth and the conditions of them, even darkness in 1:2 While we see in Genesis 1:3 Let there be light, 1:4 describes the dividing of said light, and 1:5 describes how the evening (no light), and morning (light) were the first day. Thus the time period of no light wherein the heavens and earth are made (EVENING) are described as day one.
Not my words. But the Bible's.
Day 1 is not a concept I just willy nilly made up. It's clearly there.

 

[Denadii]

He created the heavens and earth on day 1. That's why "in the beginning" is included in the verse, "in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth". day 1 was the beginning. That is what first means. It means it came before all other days. Day 0 was not first, Day 1 was first. As I said, there was no Day 0. That is why evening was first , then morning.
Day 0 requires a morning to be first, then the evening for the completion of a day.
Whereas the Bible, having evening first, then morning as the complete day, supersedes this.
The earth didn't become without form and void, it was created not having form, and void. The subsequent events gave it form, such as Genesis 1:2, where we see the Spirit of God moving over the face of the waters.
But Genesis 1:1-5 are all about Day 1. The first two verses are talking about the heavens and the earth and the conditions of them, even darkness in 1:2 While we see in Genesis 1:3 Let there be light, 1:4 describes the dividing of said light, and 1:5 describes how the evening (no light), and morning (light) were the first day. Thus the time period of no light wherein the heavens and earth are made (EVENING) are described as day one.
Not my words. But the Bible's.
Day 1 is not a concept I just willy nilly made up. It's clearly there.

OK I'll give you that.....What happened in verse two? How long was that? When was Satan cast down to Earth?

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

OK I'll give you that.....What happened in verse two? How long was that? When was Satan cast down to Earth?

As I stated before, verses 1-5 are Day 1.
When was he cast down?
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
He is actually shown in several verses still maintaining access to the heavenly courts. He is the Accuser after all. He appears in Job and Zechariah quite prominently in this role and function. Also, alluded to, in Amos (4:11) and Isaiah (7:4) among several others.
His false charges and accusations actually did have weight prior to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the different viewpoint of God's nature and wrath prior to the New Testament.
It can be said that Christ was given the power and authority upon his resurrection and thus Satan is indeed cast down, which is why in Christ, Satan has no power over us. But not wholly destroyed as of the present age, which is why we still succumb to fleshly desires, and hear the words of doubt creep into our minds. We wait upon the second coming of Christ to finalize it, sort of a final countdown.

 

[mark kennedy]

My paper doesn’t say that. Stop twisting my words. I demand that you quote where I said that.

I don't care what you demand, if you have a problem it's related to what you say about the earth being formless and void

I have no idea what this means. My paper doesn’t say that. Stop twisting my words. I demand that you quote where I said that.

Spare me the indignation, if your going to rationalize what you said restate it, it's as simple as that.

Science says no such thing, certainly not a hydrogen rich atmosphere. Science says water came much later. Atmosphere was methane, etc.

What science are you referring to. You guys say science like it's God speaking from eternity without quotes. I get tired of the fallacious rhetoric, the early atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere, it's not important but it's none the less a fact.

What do you mean by “void of life and ill formed for life.” What time period are you referring to?

The time from the original creation until the start of creation week. It might hwvevbeen minutes, it might have been billions of years later. Cosmology and the age of the sphere we inhabit is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. God created life after making the earth suitable for life, deal with that or you are working around the text, not with it.

They are self-explanatory.

Nonsense

I’m glad you agree with me.

Why would I ever do that

The entire thing, or any part of it.

The paper is flawed and has little, if anything to do with Scripture. If you want to comment on what sacred text says actually learn something about it before you start pontificating. Some Christians actually know their own Scriptures.[/quote][/Quote]

 

[Professor]

I surely would appreciate you showing us exactly where God created the Earth....Why? Because what you said is Wrong.

And what, exactly, did I say that you think is Wrong?

 

[Professor]

[Snipped.]

Here is what it comes down to:
You presume that the waters in Genesis 1:2 existed PRIOR to Genesis 1:1. Unsupported by scriptures. Day 0.
I gather that the waters in Genesis 1:2 were made DURING Genesis 1:1. Supported by Scriptures. Day 1.
Thus our impasse.

Yes, that seems to be our impasse. I believe Scripture, so when it says "the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep (waters)" and then says that after His spirit moved on the face of the waters that He said, "Let there be light," I actually believe it means what it says. Water existed before light. There is no getting around that no matter how much you twist Scripture.

Day 1 is ONLY "let there be light." There is absolutely no Scriptural justification for asserting water was created on Day 1 when it explicitly says only that God said, "Let there be light."