Creation started with nothing?

[razzelflabben]

Sometimes, I get in a discussion about something and something gets me thinking. I should deal with it then and there, but what happens is that I dwell on it a while first. This is one of those things.

In previous discussions I have had on the forum, it has been asserted that creation is about something from nothing and science knows that isn't true. Now before we move on, this is not about who is right or who is wrong, evolution or creation. It is in fact, about what creation says.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth and the earth was without form and void.

Okay, so we have a creation of heaven and earth. First off, it wasn't from nothing, it was from God. Discriptions later in Gen. such as vs. 2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." other translations say the Spirit of God "hovered" indicates that God is indeed at least full of energy. You know, the stuff that sceince says is necessary for life. In fact, throughout the bible, portrayals of God always include energy as we know it. So my first problem with the idea that creation is about something from nothing, is that it is from God who could be classified as energy. Where does this idea of something from nothing come from? certainly not from the bible!

Second problem with the something from nothing arguement, is that we are not told how God created the heaven and earth. Just that it was created. The evolutionists like to argue that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of the world. That's cool with me, but the creation account in Gen. doesn't deal with how the heaven and earth were created. So in order to look objectively at the account, we need to only deal with creation after the earth. Now I would suspect this is where some get the idea of something from nothing, but if God is real, then there is absolutely something there to start the whole thing off, first we have heaven and earth, secondly we have energy (God). But look even further, the creation of man. Man's creation is dealt with in greater detail, with specifics. Man is recorded as being made from the dust of the earth. Dust therefore already existing. Thus something from something.

So what really has me stumped is where this idea that creation is something from nothing comes from and how anytime I try to discuss the biblical account of creation, I am talked down to because from science we know that something doesn't come from nothing? Not only do I not suggest that somthing comes from nothing, but the bible doesn't suggest it either.

 

[hithesh]

So what really has me stumped is where this idea that creation is something from nothing comes from and how anytime I try to discuss the biblical account of creation, I am talked down to because from science we know that something doesn't come from nothing? Not only do I not suggest that somthing comes from nothing, but the bible doesn't suggest it either.

Well, I think from the biblical perspective, there's an error in your thinking.

Your assumption leads to this: the dirt is eternal, has always existed, etc....

Do you agree with this? The Genesis account does not waste it's time in telling you
the creation of this "something", and yet I am led to believe,
even though your post seems to assume other wise,
that you don't believe the dirt that formed man to have always existed?

If God and the dirt have both always existed, then God did not create the dirt,
and hence God would be liar since the bible says he created all things. .

You can't have it both ways, something has to come from nothing (excluding God),
or God did not create the something, because the something has always existed as he does.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I think from the biblical perspective, there's an error in your thinking.

Your assumption leads to this: the dirt is eternal, has always existed, etc....

Do you agree with this? The Genesis account does not waste it's time in telling you
the creation of this "something", and yet I am led to believe,
even though your post seems to assume other wise,
that you don't believe the dirt that formed man to have always existed?

If God and the dirt have both always existed, then God did not create the dirt,
and hence God would be liar since the bible says he created all things. .

You can't have it both ways, something has to come from nothing (excluding God),
or God did not create the something, because the something has always existed as he does.

Pondering look....wondering how I wasn't clear...... The biblical account doesn't specify anything about how that heaven and earth were created. Therefore, we simply don't know how long they existed. Just as evolution doesn't theorize beyond that single celled population, the bible doesn't specify beyond the existance of heaven and earth. That would seem to me to make your arguement void. I could see this arguement of yours if and only if we were able to conclude how heaven and earth came to be. But the bible doesn't specify, so we must start with what we have. What we have is heaven and earth. Thus we have something to start with.

Look at it another way, if I apply your arguement evenly, then the same could be true of evolution. See, I try hard to look at all ideas and thoughts objectively. One of the keys to doing this, is to apply ideas and thougts equally to all theories. So what you then would be saying is that there have always been single celled populations. That single celled population is eternal. Thus, why have a big bang theory at all? Why explore before that single celled population if it is eternal? Most people and most science, would disagree with your arguement, and explore how that single celled pop. came to be. Where did it come from? When did it exist? What compelled it to exist and survive? These are all questions we ask. We can do the same for the creation of the heavens and earth, but the answers to that question are not found in Gen.

 

[hithesh]

I apologize if I had read your post wrong.

Look at it another way, if I apply your arguement evenly, then the same could be true of evolution. See, I try hard to look at all ideas and thoughts objectively. One of the keys to doing this, is to apply ideas and thougts equally to all theories. So what you then would be saying is that there have always been single celled populations. That single celled population is eternal. Thus, why have a big bang theory at all? Why explore before that single celled population if it is eternal? Most people and most science, would disagree with your arguement, and explore how that single celled pop. came to be. Where did it come from? When did it exist? What compelled it to exist and survive? These are all questions we ask. We can do the same for the creation of the heavens and earth, but the answers to that question are not found in Gen.

Well if I was an unbeliever then I would need something else other than god that has always been eternal,
or at-least has always existed.

We all believe in something eternal, or something that has always existed, regardless if we are unbelievers of believers.
Or you could take the agnostic position, and just say you don't know.

But since I am a believer, who also believes in evolution, then god is the eternal source that created the something,
or the mechanism that created the something, or the material that led to mechanism that created something.
As an evolutionist i start after God created "something" from nothing. And we just differ on who and what that something is,
be it dirt, or single celled organisms, or the dirt that made the single cell organisms,
and the amount of time, and mechanics used to take the dirt and make it man.

I used to find it strange that God formed man out of dirt, instead of just having us come out of nothing.
He could have easily snapped his fingers and man could have appeared from nothing,
Sometimes when I hear others on this forum, they seem to always point to man as the beginning, but when in fact it's the dirt that is the beginning.

The interesting thing to note, is that through out the Bible, the prophets remind us that we are dirt,
and the same lot as the beast (Eccles 3), and that God is always reminding us of this.
Regardless of our position on the mechanics of origin, we reflect on these verses the same.

The reason why I am so certain in my belief in the Christian God, even though I am an evolutionist,
it is because of our simple beginings. It is my belief that God worked through evolution to remind us of that,
and to bring the prodigal son from Genesis back home.

(while some focus on the man that has already been formed, I focus on the dirt that formed us)

 

[razzelflabben]

I apologize if I had read your post wrong.

No problem I just want to make sure I am clear, and that stumped me.

Well if I was an unbeliever then I would need something else other than god that has always been eternal,
or at-least has always existed.

In an unbiased, objective look at both "thoeries", it doesn't really matter if one believes in God or not. What we are looking for is whether or not the "theory" has merit or value. The arguements against creation as I hear them most, deal with issues outside the biblical account. For example, young earth, world wide flood, and somthing from nothing. None of these are specified in the bible but if someone says or even sounds like they want to study the bible, then these are bound to come up. In fact, I mentioned Pastuer and was rudely told how wrong I was because somthing doesn't come from nothing, which totally disreguared the point being made. So I guess, I am just trying to deal with these fallicies one at a time. Though I don't think I have much resolve to deal with them all, I do on occasion take them on.

Truth is not found in only exploring what we believe or are comfortable with, but in exploring all we can. [/quote]

We all believe in something eternal, or something that has always existed, regardless if we are unbelievers of believers. [/quote] Been shot for saying that before.

Or you could take the agnostic position, and just say you don't know.

But we are exploring what it says, not accuming to know it. So therefore, our premise is we don't know. Doesnt matter what I personnally believe, when we look unbiased, at something, we begin our exploration with, "I don't know".

But since I am a believer, who also believes in evolution, then god is the eternal source that created the something,
or the mechanism that created the something, or the material that led to mechanism that created something.
As an evolutionist i start after God created "something" from nothing.

Okay let's start there, what did God create from nothing? First off, the bible says that God is eternal. Therefore, energy (God) has always existed. Thus all things we created from energy. Both in evolution and in creation. Secondly, what is it that you see as being created from nothing? The heaven and earth? We don't know how they were created, from something or nothing but energy, it doesn't say. Plants and animals? Well, first we have energy, second, we have the elements in the earth, so seems to me that again, we have something from something. Thirdly, we have specifics about man and that man was created from something, dirt. So again, we have something from something, not nothing. What do you think was created from nothing?

And we just differ on who and what that something is,

What makes you say this, because I explore both theories we disagree? What do you think I believe? I am an explorer, never afraid to look for answers anywhere they might exist. That is what I believe, that we can know truth if we aren't to narrow minded or fearful to explore. Is this what we disagree about?

be it dirt, or single celled organisms, or the dirt that made the single cell organisms,
and the amount of time, and mechanics used to take the dirt and make it man.

I don't understand what your point is, it sounds like you are saying we disagree about the mechanics and time of life as we know it, but I haven't put forth what I believe personally, so how could you possibly know if we agree or disagree?

I used to find it strange that God formed man out of dirt, instead of just having us come out of nothing.
He could have easily snapped his fingers and man could have appeared from nothing,
Sometimes when I hear others on this forum, they seem to always point to man as the beginning, but when in fact it's the dirt that is the beginning.

But the assertion I hear so much is that creation purposes that something came from nothing. Here is a perfect example that this is a false understanding of Gen. that in reality Gen. claims that something comes from somthing. Which BTW is the discussion as put forth in the OP.

The interesting thing to note, is that through out the Bible, the prophets remind us that we are dirt,
and the same lot as the beast (Eccles 3), and that God is always reminding us of this.
Regardless of our position on the mechanics of origin, we reflect on these verses the same.

And so, the bible, not just Gen. asserts that something came from somthing, so why then do so many use the arguement that creation is about something from nothing?

The reason why I am so certain in my belief in the Christian God, even though I am an evolutionist,
it is because of our simple beginings. It is my belief that God worked through evolution to remind us of that,
and to bring the prodigal son from Genesis back home.

Thanks for sharing your personal beliefs. You explained why you believe in God, Why then do you believe evolution?

 

[hithesh]

Secondly, what is it that you see as being created from nothing? The heaven and earth? We don't know how they were created, from something or nothing but energy, it doesn't say.

I think the problem is that you are confusing evolution with other sciences. Evolution is not concerned with the creation of the earth, or the heavens.

What do you think was created from nothing?

"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created." Rev 4:11

I don't know the exact point where God created all things from nothing, what do I do know (or perhaps we can say believe), is areas that were not created from nothing. I don't believe I was created from nothing, nor do I believe my great grandparents were created from nothing, nor my great great ancestors... multi-cell organisms...etc...ect..., But once again in exploring this point, we'd be leaving the domain of evolution.

What makes you say this, because I explore both theories we disagree? What do you think I believe?

You seem like an honest man, but when I address my post on this forum, I try to make them as universal as possible, so in parts that I say "you", the "you" is just a filler for those with differing views. So, I do not know your position.

But the assertion I hear so much is that creation purposes that something came from nothing. Here is a perfect example that this is a false understanding of Gen. that in reality Gen. claims that something comes from something. Which BTW is the discussion as put forth in the OP. And so, the bible, not just Gen. asserts that something came from something, so why then do so many use the argument that creation is about something from nothing?

Well, I don't know of any TEs who use that argument, nor do I understand the logic of such an argument. It's perhaps a moot point, that has nothing to do with "evolution".

Why then do you believe evolution?

Well, I think you might need to understand what evolution means: "evolution is the change over time in the relative frequencies of alleles in a population."

This is a fact, and you'd be hard pressed to find a YEC, who differs.

Positive selection occurs, positive mutations occur, speciation occurs, these are all facts. Give it a good deal of time like 4 billion years, and great diversity occurs among the species.

We can show relations in the gene sequence that codes for proteins, in all existing species. If you line up the various species by phenotype alone, the relations are even stronger. And you don't find bunnies in the precambrian, etc..etc...

The point that needs to be made, is that we all (at least the better informed YECs) believe in evolution, some say it can walk only a block (particularly if the life on earth has only existed for a few thousand years old), and others say it can go for miles (particularly if life on earth has been around for a few billion years).

You can't ask such a question as why do you believe in evolution, it's almost as pointless as asking why do you believe the earth is round. The question needs to be focused to address the particular area of evolution you're questioning, or the particular distance you're hesitant to walk.

On a side note, the Darwin's theory of evolution, was proposed long before inheritance patterns, and DNA were discovered. In over a hundred years, the evidence supporting evolution has piled up so high, that even YECs have to concede and revert many of there previous claims as a result. The human genome has just been mapped out only a few years ago, and with this evolution will continue to gain traction, while the YEC perspective continues to crumble in the light of new evidence. I see no other explanation of the evidence, nor have I ever seen an alternative explanation that even accounts for a tenth of the evidence. The opposition continues to finds scraps to pick at, while the walls are slowly closing in on them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sometimes, I get in a discussion about something and something gets me thinking. I should deal with it then and there, but what happens is that I dwell on it a while first. This is one of those things.

In previous discussions I have had on the forum, it has been asserted that creation is about something from nothing and science knows that isn't true. Now before we move on, this is not about who is right or who is wrong, evolution or creation. It is in fact, about what creation says.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth and the earth was without form and void.

Okay, so we have a creation of heaven and earth. First off, it wasn't from nothing, it was from God. Discriptions later in Gen. such as vs. 2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." other translations say the Spirit of God "hovered" indicates that God is indeed at least full of energy. You know, the stuff that sceince says is necessary for life. In fact, throughout the bible, portrayals of God always include energy as we know it. So my first problem with the idea that creation is about something from nothing, is that it is from God who could be classified as energy. Where does this idea of something from nothing come from? certainly not from the bible!

Second problem with the something from nothing arguement, is that we are not told how God created the heaven and earth. Just that it was created. The evolutionists like to argue that the theory of evolution doesn't deal with the beginnings of the world. That's cool with me, but the creation account in Gen. doesn't deal with how the heaven and earth were created. So in order to look objectively at the account, we need to only deal with creation after the earth. Now I would suspect this is where some get the idea of something from nothing, but if God is real, then there is absolutely something there to start the whole thing off, first we have heaven and earth, secondly we have energy (God). But look even further, the creation of man. Man's creation is dealt with in greater detail, with specifics. Man is recorded as being made from the dust of the earth. Dust therefore already existing. Thus something from something.

So what really has me stumped is where this idea that creation is something from nothing comes from and how anytime I try to discuss the biblical account of creation, I am talked down to because from science we know that something doesn't come from nothing? Not only do I not suggest that somthing comes from nothing, but the bible doesn't suggest it either.

Bara בּרא is the word being translated 'created' and it means from nothing. It is used exclusively of God and the creation later from the void and formless earth was subsequent to the original creation.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think the problem is that you are confusing evolution with other sciences. Evolution is not concerned with the creation of the earth, or the heavens.

Exactly, and when talking about the origins of life, creation does not deal with the creation of heaven and earth or flood for that matter, but they are always brought into the debate sooner or later. If we are to review both creation and evolution we start by comparing them where they address the same issues. I have repeatedly heard the arguement that creation believes that something came from nothing but I can't find any evidence of this. Where is this evidence that says something came from nothing?

"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created." Rev 4:11

I don't know the exact point where God created all things from nothing, what do I do know (or perhaps we can say believe), is areas that were not created from nothing. I don't believe I was created from nothing, nor do I believe my great grandparents were created from nothing, nor my great great ancestors... multi-cell organisms...etc...ect..., But once again in exploring this point, we'd be leaving the domain of evolution.



You seem like an honest man, but when I address my post on this forum, I try to make them as universal as possible, so in parts that I say "you", the "you" is just a filler for those with differing views. So, I do not know your position.

I am a woman, though some would automatically use that against me, I see what you are saying and if I forget please forgive me in advance and correctly me gently. [/quote]



Well, I don't know of any TEs who use that argument, nor do I understand the logic of such an argument. It's perhaps a moot point, that has nothing to do with "evolution".
[/quote] I have heard it a lot and still don't understand it after dwelling on it for some time, which is why I am asking someone to explain and discuss it with me.

Well, I think you might need to understand what evolution means: "evolution is the change over time in the relative frequencies of alleles in a population."

This is a fact, and you'd be hard pressed to find a YEC, who differs.

I know I am just asking why you believe what you believe and so not really open to discussion here, but I just wanted to say, 1. I agree so far, 2. not all creationists are YEC. The assumption that they are gets many people off on the wrong foot to start off with.

Positive selection occurs, positive mutations occur, speciation occurs, these are all facts. Give it a good deal of time like 4 billion years, and great diversity occurs among the species.

We can show relations in the gene sequence that codes for proteins, in all existing species. If you line up the various species by phenotype alone, the relations are even stronger. And you don't find bunnies in the precambrian, etc..etc...

The point that needs to be made, is that we all (at least the better informed YECs) believe in evolution, some say it can walk only a block (particularly if the life on earth has only existed for a few thousand years old), and others say it can go for miles (particularly if life on earth has been around for a few billion years).

This talks about what evolution is, but not why you believe it.

You can't ask such a question as why do you believe in evolution, it's almost as pointless as asking why do you believe the earth is round. The question needs to be focused to address the particular area of evolution you're questioning, or the particular distance you're hesitant to walk.

The same could be said for belief in God and yet you summarized it nicely. What I hear you saying is that your believe in evolution because of the science you have been taught.

On a side note, the Darwin's theory of evolution, was proposed long before inheritance patterns, and DNA were discovered. In over a hundred years, the evidence supporting evolution has piled up so high, that even YECs have to concede and revert many of there previous claims as a result. The human genome has just been mapped out only a few years ago, and with this evolution will continue to gain traction, while the YEC perspective continues to crumble in the light of new evidence. I see no other explanation of the evidence, nor have I ever seen an alternative explanation that even accounts for a tenth of the evidence. The opposition continues to finds scraps to pick at, while the walls are slowly closing in on them.

Interesting, two interesting things come from this post. 1. you only talk about YEC why? What of those who have never held to the young earth theology but believe in creation none the less?
2. Have you ever seen evidence for creation? Not the "twisted" rantings of those who want to believe and convince others of creation, but rather a list of things that would be true if creation happened and whether or not scientific tests evidence that said list? Much different, be careful not to confuse the two.

 

[razzelflabben]

Bara בּרא is the word being translated 'created' and it means from nothing. It is used exclusively of God and the creation later from the void and formless earth was subsequent to the original creation.

And without specifics, we don't know if the writer intended it to say, it appeared out of nothing or it was out of nothing. Point is, the actual creation of the heaven and earth are not a part of the creation story or more details would be given. The story starts at their creation not how they were created. And BTW, it still even at that was something from something. So the arguement still falls void.

Edit: this site seems to see the interpretation of created here as bring into existance where it did not exist before http://www.bcmmin.org/create.html that is very different than to create from nothing at all and would be consistant with the understanding that God did it. Otherwise, we remove the existance of God from the equation.

 

[gluadys]

Okay, so we have a creation of heaven and earth. First off, it wasn't from nothing, it was from God.

Depends on what you mean by "from God". Have you ever heard of the concept of "emanation"? It is not a Christian belief, but was common in ancient Greek philosophy. You can also find parallels in Hinduism and Buddhism. Basically this belief says that all things are made of the same stuff God is made of. In fact, everything is a part of God, just as every drop of water in the ocean is part of the ocean. Fundamentally, there is no difference between God, heaven, earth and all the things in heaven and earth. God is heaven, earth and all the things in heaven and earth, and all these things are aspects of God. They come and go just as we put clothes on and take them off, but basically, they are all God.

The Judaeo-Christian belief in creation repudiates this notion. Saying that creation is "from God" is not the same as saying it is all an extension of God's own being. Creation is "from God" in the sense that God made it, not in the sense that it is a part of God himself.

OK so far?

Now if creation is not from the same stuff God is, what did God make it from?

Many of the beliefs that surrounded the church in its early years had various opinions on whether the world was made from water or fire or some other stuff. But what all of them had in common was that they believed this stuff had always existed. They believed the primordial stuff of the universe was eternal, just like God, and did not have to be created.

This belief was also rejected by the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Nothing other than God is eternal. Since God did not make the world out of his own being, and since nothing else was eternal for him to use in making the world, God had to create stuff first---then make the heavens and earth and everything else out of the first stuff he made.

What did God make the first stuff from? There are only two choices: from his own being or from nothing. We have already rejected option one. Conclusion, God created out of nothing. Once he had created something, then he could use that something to make other things e.g. dirt to make man. But he had to create the dirt first. And maybe the dirt was made of something he created earlier. But he had to create that too. Sooner or later you get to the point where, when you ask "And what did God make that from?" the answer has to be "nothing".

In fact, throughout the bible, portrayals of God always include energy as we know it. So my first problem with the idea that creation is about something from nothing, is that it is from God who could be classified as energy. Where does this idea of something from nothing come from? certainly not from the bible!

Indeed all the energy in creation comes originally from God's energy. But we should not think of God's energy as being physical and measurable, like the energy of the sun or the energy of the wind. Physical energy, like everything else, is either eternal or created. Christians believe it was created, not eternal. It had a beginning. Otherwise we are back to the idea that the physical world is the "body" of God and God is the "soul" of the universe. That is a form of pantheism.

So what really has me stumped is where this idea that creation is something from nothing comes from and how anytime I try to discuss the biblical account of creation, I am talked down to because from science we know that something doesn't come from nothing?

Where do you get the idea that science knows this? Science knows nothing of the moment of creation. As far back in time as science can study, the universe is already there.

Science knows that in nature matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Maybe that is the idea you have heard). But science can only study nature itself. It cannot study where nature itself came from. So science cannot know that nature itself did not come from nothing. It can only know that once nature exists, no matter or energy in nature can be created or destroyed.

As far as nature itself is concerned, there are only the same options we have already discussed. Either it is eternal (because it is God, or is another eternal being besides God) or it was created.

All the stuff science studies is part of nature. It cannot be what nature itself was made of in the first place. So where did nature come from in the first place? It was created out of nothing.

That was the conclusion of the Jewish rabbis and the early Church Fathers. It is why we say in the creed: We believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things seen and unseen.

Heaven and Earth are not part of God. God made them. And since nothing existed from eternity to make them from, God made the stuff from which he made Heaven and Earth, too. And he made that stuff from nothing.

 

[gluadys]

If we are to review both creation and evolution we start by comparing them where they address the same issues.

This is assuming that creation and evolution are different things. Christian evolutionists believe evolution is how God arranged for many different species to come into being over time. Evolution is a mode of creation. It is not something apart from creation.

What of those who have never held to the young earth theology but believe in creation none the less?

Good point. There are also old-earth creationists (who accept the science regarding the age of the earth, but not the science of evolution) and evolutionary creationists (aka theistic evolutionists) who accept both the science of the age of the earth and the science of evolution. Strictly speaking we are all creationists, since we all believe God created everything. We have some disagreements about how and when, but we all agree on that fundamental point.

Unfortunately, when used as a label, "creationist" has come to be associated mostly with young-earth creationists. Spoils a good word for its proper use, IMO.

2. Have you ever seen evidence for creation? Not the "twisted" rantings of those who want to believe and convince others of creation, but rather a list of things that would be true if creation happened and whether or not scientific tests evidence that said list? Much different, be careful not to confuse the two.

No. And I would not expect to. Science can only study a natural world that has already been created. So science cannot determine whether nature has been created.

What science can do, to a limited extent, is decide on matters about how and when creation occurred. Have the heavens and earth only existed for 6,000 years as YECs say, or for 13.7 billion years (for the heavens) and 4.5 billion years (for the earth)? There are many lines of evidence which falsify the young-earth claim. So, although science cannot say how nature came to be, it can say that nature has been around for a very, very long time---much more than 6,000 years.

Science can also look at how and when nature became organized in different ways. For example, it can calculate when the universe became large enough and cool enough for sub-atomic particles to make atomic nuclei. And when it became possible for atomic nuclei to hold onto electrons and become atoms. It can trace how gravity drew atoms together to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, comets, asteroids, moons, etc. And so on and on.

However, all these things are things that happen in nature, when nature has already been created. So they are not evidence that nature was created. Only evidence that creation must have taken place already for these things to be happening.

 

[hithesh]

I agree so far, 2. not all creationists are YEC. The assumption that they are gets many people off on the wrong foot to start off with.

Well, I'm a creationists as well, you'll see some people in the profile using the category evolutionary creationism, instead of theistic evolution. I use the YEC as reference point, since your position is a bit ambiguous. On one end of the creationist extremes you have YECs and the other end you have TEs, everything else just falls somewhere between these two positions. So using, YEC, as a reference point, provides room for other views to fit in between.

This talks about what evolution is, but not why you believe it.

Well, I think you might have to clarify what it means "to believe".
We have noticed the various evidence for the Holocaust occurring, such as eye witness accounts, archaeological evidence, etc, news reports, etc.. It doesn't seem to make much sense to tell someone, "this talks about what the holocaust is, but not why you "believe" it occurred.

The same could be said for belief in God and yet you summarized it nicely. What I hear you saying is that your believe in evolution because of the science you have been taught.

Well, I've only been "taught" evolution this semester, I've been "taught" creationism since I was 5. So my belief in evolution, is not because of some form of "indoctrination". Most of my friends, and family are "creationist". I try to keep informed as well as possible, I spend time on the AiG, these forums, and where ever else I can find creationist literature, I also due the same for other positions, as much as time willing. Logic and reason, led me to believe in evolution more so than anyone "teaching" me about it.

What of those who have never held to the young earth theology but believe in creation none the less?

I tend to, to form my ideas sometimes around stories in the bible, you'll even catch me sometimes trying to place theistic evolution into the Genesis account, such as the whole "dirt" thing. But I haven't found the right fit, perhaps its possible, and someone can provide it, but so far, little progress has been made to fit science into the Genesis account. As I've already mentioned you could make a 1,001, interpretation of the Genesis account, some that would fit better with the evidence than others. I don't know of any Genesis interpretation that works really well with the scientific evidence, as of now.

Have you ever seen evidence for creation? Not the "twisted" rantings of those who want to believe and convince others of creation, but rather a list of things that would be true if creation happened and whether or not scientific tests evidence that said list? Much different, be careful not to confuse the two.

Love.

 

[Assyrian]

Bara בּרא is the word being translated 'created' and it means from nothing. It is used exclusively of God and the creation later from the void and formless earth was subsequent to the original creation.

Have you ever actually looked it up in a concordance?

YECs keep repeating these claims but no one seem to check if it is true. That is not how the word is used in the bible.
Ezek 21:30 In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.
1Sam 2:29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by making yourselves fat on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?' It may refer to ex nihilo in some of the verses about creation, but the word itself does not mean it.

Num 16:30 But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD." Here we have God creating a chasm from solid ground. Surely the opposite of creating something from nothing?

 

[razzelflabben]

Depends on what you mean by "from God". Have you ever heard of the concept of "emanation"? It is not a Christian belief, but was common in ancient Greek philosophy. You can also find parallels in Hinduism and Buddhism. Basically this belief says that all things are made of the same stuff God is made of. In fact, everything is a part of God, just as every drop of water in the ocean is part of the ocean. Fundamentally, there is no difference between God, heaven, earth and all the things in heaven and earth. God is heaven, earth and all the things in heaven and earth, and all these things are aspects of God. They come and go just as we put clothes on and take them off, but basically, they are all God.

gluadys, nice to "see" you again. What I mean when I say from God is that something was there to start out with. It didn't just magically appear, it came from God. Whether a part of God or created by Him is irrelavent to the idea that there was God, thus not nothing. If God is real, and if God created, then the idea of somthing from nothing is flawed at it's conception. God is not nothing, but somthing. As to which it is, God taking it from Himself or God created what was not there, is irrelavent to the arguement that it is something from nothing. Take an illusionist for example. Even if he appears to make somthing magically appear or disappear, is irrelevant to the idea that He did it, or that he was necessary for it to happen. The magician was still a necessary element for that appearance or disappearance to occur. Thus there was something there, in this case, the magician. In the case of creation, God.

The Judaeo-Christian belief in creation repudiates this notion. Saying that creation is "from God" is not the same as saying it is all an extension of God's own being. Creation is "from God" in the sense that God made it, not in the sense that it is a part of God himself.

Either one refutes the nothing that somthing came from nothing.

OK so far?

Now if creation is not from the same stuff God is, what did God make it from?

That question is beyond the scope of a biblical understanding of creation. There may be any people and beliefs that dwell on the topic and make up an theory, but from a biblical perspective, it is not discussed. So from a biblical perspective, we simply don't know. But that was the point from the beginning, the only creation accounts we have in the bible, at least suggest that creation was from somthing, not nothing, so the idea of somthing from nothing is flawed from the get go and is troublesome as an arguement for evolution because it shows a total lack of understanding of what Gen. says.

Many of the beliefs that surrounded the church in its early years had various opinions on whether the world was made from water or fire or some other stuff. But what all of them had in common was that they believed this stuff had always existed. They believed the primordial stuff of the universe was eternal, just like God, and did not have to be created.

This belief was also rejected by the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Nothing other than God is eternal. Since God did not make the world out of his own being, and since nothing else was eternal for him to use in making the world, God had to create stuff first---then make the heavens and earth and everything else out of the first stuff he made.

What did God make the first stuff from? There are only two choices: from his own being or from nothing. We have already rejected option one. Conclusion, God created out of nothing. Once he had created something, then he could use that something to make other things e.g. dirt to make man. But he had to create the dirt first. And maybe the dirt was made of something he created earlier. But he had to create that too. Sooner or later you get to the point where, when you ask "And what did God make that from?" the answer has to be "nothing".

All this discussion, though interesting, goes way beyond the discussion of origins of the species as defined both in evolution and creation. In other words, evolution does not deal with how the single celled pop came to being as creation does not deal with how the heavens and earth came to being. Therefore using the arguement that somthing comes from nothing is a flawed arguement from the standpoint of what creation is and says and should never enter the arguement.

Indeed all the energy in creation comes originally from God's energy. But we should not think of God's energy as being physical and measurable,

why not? If God can make Himself "real" in this world, why couldn't His energy be "real" as well.

like the energy of the sun or the energy of the wind. Physical energy, like everything else, is either eternal or created. Christians believe it was created, not eternal. It had a beginning. Otherwise we are back to the idea that the physical world is the "body" of God and God is the "soul" of the universe. That is a form of pantheism.

I think you are missing the point in exchange for being philosophical. The point is, not all these philosophical issues have to be settled in order to know that according to the bible, somthing didn't come from nothing, but rather something came from somthing. So far, you have not shown any arguement to question this understanding.

Where do you get the idea that science knows this? Science knows nothing of the moment of creation. As far back in time as science can study, the universe is already there.

I didn't say it or believe it, it was stated to me many times over, every time I try to address it, I am told how uneducated and stupid I am for believing the biblical creation, somthing that btw, I have not discussed one way or the other as to what I personally believe, but rather have discussed what makes it invalid from a scientific standpoint.

Now, all that being said, why do people (evolutionists) insist that the creation story starts with the creation of the heavens and earth. The story actually starts at the creation of said, not with the creation of said. This is a huge difference. It is equivelant to saying that the theory of evolution starts with the existance of a single celled pop. and not with it's creation.

Science knows that in nature matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. (Maybe that is the idea you have heard). But science can only study nature itself. It cannot study where nature itself came from. So science cannot know that nature itself did not come from nothing. It can only know that once nature exists, no matter or energy in nature can be created or destroyed

Isn't it odd that when an evolutionist makes an absurd claim, it is always the other person who didn't understand and never the evolutionist getting the facts wrong. I find that personally appauling that you can't fathom that it could be either their being wrong or me but instead, the assumption is made that it must be me who is wrong. But such is life and you will continue with this game if history indeed repeats itself.

As far as nature itself is concerned, there are only the same options we have already discussed. Either it is eternal (because it is God, or is another eternal being besides God) or it was created.

All the stuff science studies is part of nature. It cannot be what nature itself was made of in the first place. So where did nature come from in the first place? It was created out of nothing.

The point is, we don't know where it all came from. So therefore cannot declare that science knows that something doesn't come from nothing. In otherwords, the evolutionist arguement that something cannot come from nothing is a false and misleading arguement and is not consistant with either science or theories of the origins of life.

That was the conclusion of the Jewish rabbis and the early Church Fathers. It is why we say in the creed: We believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things seen and unseen.

Heaven and Earth are not part of God. God made them. And since nothing existed from eternity to make them from, God made the stuff from which he made Heaven and Earth, too. And he made that stuff from nothing.

Thanks for sharing your belief with us, but the discussion is about the biblical creation and the biblical creation doesn't deal with how the heavens and earth were created, only that they were. Like saying, the heavens and earth existed because of God, now the story begins. The evolutionary equivalent would be....a single celled population existed how we don't know, now the story begins. It is background information to the story not part of the actual story.

Now I think the discussion above is interesting, just not part of the creation account. If it were part of the account, we would have more details such as we find in the rest of creation.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is assuming that creation and evolution are different things. Christian evolutionists believe evolution is how God arranged for many different species to come into being over time. Evolution is a mode of creation. It is not something apart from creation.

Right, therefore the assumption that creation believes that something came from nothing is once again shown to be a false assumption. Creation is not about somthing from nothing, but rather about how that somthing came into being, just as evolution is, so why so much argueing and false assumptions just to prove one side wrong and the other right? Can we ever know with certainty?

Good point. There are also old-earth creationists (who accept the science regarding the age of the earth, but not the science of evolution) and evolutionary creationists (aka theistic evolutionists) who accept both the science of the age of the earth and the science of evolution. Strictly speaking we are all creationists, since we all believe God created everything. We have some disagreements about how and when, but we all agree on that fundamental point.

Unfortunately, when used as a label, "creationist" has come to be associated mostly with young-earth creationists. Spoils a good word for its proper use, IMO.

unfortunately, I agree, not unfortunate that we agree, but unfortunate that people can't see how compatable creation and evolution really are if we remove the steryotypes and listen to the opinions and discuss ideas rather than the false assumptions of either.

No. And I would not expect to. Science can only study a natural world that has already been created. So science cannot determine whether nature has been created.

Science an absolutely study whether something is created or not, and can also study whether or not the creator was the same creator. Take a painting, we can study to see if it was printed or painted (created) and who the creator was. It is about studying the empirical world in relation to what we know about created things. It happens all the time in the art world.

What science can do, to a limited extent, is decide on matters about how and when creation occurred. Have the heavens and earth only existed for 6,000 years as YECs say, or for 13.7 billion years (for the heavens) and 4.5 billion years (for the earth)? There are many lines of evidence which falsify the young-earth claim. So, although science cannot say how nature came to be, it can say that nature has been around for a very, very long time---much more than 6,000 years.

Science can also look at how and when nature became organized in different ways. For example, it can calculate when the universe became large enough and cool enough for sub-atomic particles to make atomic nuclei. And when it became possible for atomic nuclei to hold onto electrons and become atoms. It can trace how gravity drew atoms together to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, comets, asteroids, moons, etc. And so on and on.

However, all these things are things that happen in nature, when nature has already been created. So they are not evidence that nature was created. Only evidence that creation must have taken place already for these things to be happening.

But science can indeed explore to know if somthing was created or manufactured.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

Einstein discovered that everything was made from or out of energy anyways.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I'm a creationists as well, you'll see some people in the profile using the category evolutionary creationism, instead of theistic evolution. I use the YEC as reference point, since your position is a bit ambiguous. On one end of the creationist extremes you have YECs and the other end you have TEs, everything else just falls somewhere between these two positions. So using, YEC, as a reference point, provides room for other views to fit in between.
Well, I think you might have to clarify what it means "to believe".
We have noticed the various evidence for the Holocaust occurring, such as eye witness accounts, archaeological evidence, etc, news reports, etc.. It doesn't seem to make much sense to tell someone, "this talks about what the holocaust is, but not why you "believe" it occurred.
Well, I've only been "taught" evolution this semester, I've been "taught" creationism since I was 5. So my belief in evolution, is not because of some form of "indoctrination". Most of my friends, and family are "creationist". I try to keep informed as well as possible, I spend time on the AiG, these forums, and where ever else I can find creationist literature, I also due the same for other positions, as much as time willing. Logic and reason, led me to believe in evolution more so than anyone "teaching" me about it.
I tend to, to form my ideas sometimes around stories in the bible, you'll even catch me sometimes trying to place theistic evolution into the Genesis account, such as the whole "dirt" thing. But I haven't found the right fit, perhaps its possible, and someone can provide it, but so far, little progress has been made to fit science into the Genesis account. As I've already mentioned you could make a 1,001, interpretation of the Genesis account, some that would fit better with the evidence than others. I don't know of any Genesis interpretation that works really well with the scientific evidence, as of now.

Love.

I was not trying to suggest that you were indoctrinated, I have more faith in people than that. What I was suggesting is that the evidence you have been taught was convincing enough to you for you to believe.

Take my belief in God, though I wouldn't expect you to understand this, I believe in God because the evidence I have been shown is enough to convince me that God is real. It is why I believe God is real.

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

I'm sorry guys...lol... I don't have the patience of reading these long quotes. Sorry, lol, God Bless you all anyways.

 

[razzelflabben]

Einstein discovered that everything was made from or out of energy anyways.

Which brings us right back to the idea that God is energy. It also gives us reason to ponder the Gen account that indicates, or suggests that the energy of God was used to create, be that drawing things from Himself or drawing them from things not seen.

 

[Deamiter]

Whyever would you assume that something cannot come from nothing? We certainly can observe particles popping out of nothing in quantum fluctuations. Even more, the idea that everything must have a cause is based solely on our observations of the universe. Why should our observations of how the universe works apply to events in the absense of our universe.

Anyway, you should be aware that you're also misusing the word energy to say that God is energy. Unless you're claiming that we can measure God with a power-meter whenever he moves (which would require that part of God be absorbed by the power meter) you're redefining the term "energy" as it applies to E=MC^2