My theory on creation.

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
But they attempt it on their own.

Instead of acknowledging a rich Source of knowledge ...

Ephesians 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,


I hope you don't take that to mean that, if you wanted a water powered car, all you would need to do is direct a quick prayer heavenward. It is talking about sanctification.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,405
51,545
Guam
✟4,916,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I hope you don't take that to mean that, if you wanted a water powered car, all you would need to do is direct a quick prayer heavenward.
No.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟982,622.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
By the standard of anyone that has studied the sciences. Mind you, I am not saying that the entire Bible is wrong. Merely the book of Genesis.

Whether read literally or poetically Genesis says that an intelligent, supernatural entity created the universe, on purpose. That seems reasonable. It had to come from somewhere. :bow:
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
By the standard of anyone that has studied the sciences. Mind you, I am not saying that the entire Bible is wrong. Merely the book of Genesis.
But Genesis doesn't deal with Science. So how could it be wrong? If you read it as a science book, then you're the one who's wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
But Genesis doesn't deal with Science. So how could it be wrong? If you read it as a science book, then you're the one who's wrong.

I am not the one that is trying to read it as a science book. That would be YEC's. But if you think that there were ever only two people you are demonstrably wrong. If you think that there was a worldwide flood you are demonstrably wrong. You can look at the book as a series of morality tales. Then it is not wrong.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I am not the one that is trying to read it as a science book. That would be YEC's. But if you think that there were ever only two people you are demonstrably wrong. If you think that there was a worldwide flood you are demonstrably wrong. You can look at the book as a series of morality tales. Then it is not wrong.
Well, I'm not a YEC believer. But I do believe there were, at one time, only two people. Why? Because I believe that what defines a human person is a soul. And I also believe there was a worldwide flood because I know for a fact that the Himilayan Mountains were under water, as was lots of Spain. If the ocean was, at one time, not as deep as now, and the mountains not as high (since we know that the Himilayas are rising, it stands to reason that other things can rise or fall as well), it may have been. What really matters is what the beginning of Genesis teaches, though. I mean, you know Aesop's Fables are not literally true, but provide life lessons, right? If you believe Genesis teaches life lessons about faith in God, then the literature there has served its purpose.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Well, I'm not a YEC believer. But I do believe there were, at one time, only two people. Why? Because I believe that what defines a human person is a soul. And I also believe there was a worldwide flood because I know for a fact that the Himilayan Mountains were under water, as was lots of Spain. If the ocean was, at one time, not as deep as now, and the mountains not as high (since we know that the Himilayas are rising, it stands to reason that other things can rise or fall as well), it may have been. What really matters is what the beginning of Genesis teaches, though. I mean, you know Aesop's Fables are not literally true, but provide life lessons, right? If you believe Genesis teaches life lessons about faith in God, then the literature there has served its purpose.
No, the Himalayan mountains were never underwater. The sediments that make up the rock that made the mountains were below sea level, but that was many millions of years ago before the mountains existed. And the fossils themselves tell us that the flood story is nonsense. Think of how much life there is. If all life died suddenly there would only be one fairly thin layer of life. That is not what we see. We see thousands upon thousands of feet of fossiliferous strata all around the Earth.

And there were never only "two people" That can be seen by the amount of diversity in the human genome. Nor were there ever only the eight people of the Noah's myth. There are real life examples of what happens when populations are reduced to that level.

But as I said, they can be used as morality tales. They are in no way historic, but then neither is the book of Job. In fact it is highly contradictory to the literalist interpretation of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

TBDude65

Fossil Finder (TM)
Dec 26, 2016
767
565
Tennessee
✟26,919.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Creation, there is the BB theory which seems to be the one most Genesis deniers believe in and some others with a little different twist. I happen to be one that believes God said what He meant and He meant what he said so I have a theory about the NEC vs OEC.

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

In what would become to be known as day one, He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to temporarily set up day and night until earth and the sun were created.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

On the third day, the waters below the firmament were gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The earth then brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

It was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time.


There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.

The time dimension was not created until the universe was placed into position. Scripture informs that God stretches the heavens, just like science came to believe thousands of years later.

“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I am just going to take on this last line:
"Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural."

This is an argument from ignorance. Not knowing the answer to a question (for the moment it is irrelevant if any of these question have scientific answers) does not mean any other answer is any more likely by default.

Invoking supernatural explanations when there is no evidence demonstrating that Supernature exists, is a non sequitur. It does not logically follow that one can conclude an event is supernatural when all one has is an absence of a natural explanation. People once had no natural explanation for lightening, but that never made the possibility of Zeus hurling lightening bolts down any more probable.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No, the Himalayan mountains were never underwater. The sediments that make up the rock that made the mountains were below sea level, but that was many millions of years ago before the mountains existed. And the fossils themselves tell us that the flood story is nonsense. Think of how much life there is. If all life died suddenly there would only be one fairly thin layer of life. That is not what we see. We see thousands upon thousands of feet of fossiliferous strata all around the Earth.
Life in the water wouldn't have all died, would it? You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. I believe my thought process. So what if you disagree?
And there were never only "two people" That can be seen by the amount of diversity in the human genome. Nor were there ever only the eight people of the Noah's myth. There are real life examples of what happens when populations are reduced to that level.
The difference between a humanoid and a human is a soul. You cannot know for certain how many humans (with souls) there were. I can believe what's written about that. Regarding what happens when populations are reduced to that level, it depends on whether God intervenes, in my view.
But as I said, they can be used as morality tales. They are in no way historic, but then neither is the book of Job. In fact it is highly contradictory to the literalist interpretation of Genesis.
My point is that the Bible is true, in the context it was meant to be understood. If there is a disagreement between Science and the Bible, then we need to examine the science, because the Bible isn't a science text book or a historical text, except for Chronicles, Kings, and Samuel. And the Gospels and Acts.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Life in the water wouldn't have all died, would it?

Actually it would have. Have you ever even looked into keeping a salt water aquarium? And that only makes your claims about Mt. Everest even more worthless.

You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. I believe my thought process. So what if you disagree?

You have mere belief. Beliefs that can be shown to be wrong. I have knowledge.

The difference between a humanoid and a human is a soul. You cannot know for certain how many humans (with souls) there were. I can believe what's written about that. Regarding what happens when populations are reduced to that level, it depends on whether God intervenes, in my view.

A clear reinterpretation of the Bible, and as usual if you want to make that claim the burden of proof is upon you. What is your evidence for a soul? What is your evidence that early man did not have a soul? I know, all you have is belief.

My point is that the Bible is true, in the context it was meant to be understood. If there is a disagreement between Science and the Bible, then we need to examine the science, because the Bible isn't a science text book or a historical text, except for Chronicles, Kings, and Samuel. And the Gospels and Acts.

The problem is that there are errors in those books too. Even in the Gospels. You claim the Bible to be true without any valid reasons.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Actually it would have. Have you ever even looked into keeping a salt water aquarium? And that only makes your claims about Mt. Everest even more worthless.
In fact, all the fresh water in the world would not change the salinity of the ocean enough to kill all oceanic life. And yes, I have kept a reef aquarium-three of them, in fact.

My claim about Mt Everest? What about "Himalayan Sea Salt"?
You have mere belief. Beliefs that can be shown to be wrong. I have knowledge.
Knowledge can be shown to be wrong. And what I have is faith. Not just belief.
A clear reinterpretation of the Bible, and as usual if you want to make that claim the burden of proof is upon you. What is your evidence for a soul? What is your evidence that early man did not have a soul? I know, all you have is belief.
It's not a reinterpretation of the Bible, though. There are things that have no evidence which are widely believed, and true. Love, for example. I have faith, not just belief.
The problem is that there are errors in those books too. Even in the Gospels. You claim the Bible to be true without any valid reasons.
I'd love for you to show any substantive errors that cannot be explained by something such as a different point of view, different audience written to, or something like that. The Catholic Church has context to tell us what is meant by what was written in the NT.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In fact, all the fresh water in the world would not change the salinity of the ocean enough to kill all oceanic life. And yes, I have kept a reef aquarium-three of them, in fact.

It would take 5.5 miles of water to cover Everest. Your calculation is a bit off.
My claim about Mt Everest? What about "Himalayan Sea Salt"?Knowledge can be shown to be wrong. And what I have is faith. Not just belief.It's not a reinterpretation of the Bible, though. There are things that have no evidence which are widely believed, and true. Love, for example. I have faith, not just belief.

What about it? Yes, all you have is faith. The worst basis in the world for belief. When faith runs contrary to evidence faith is almost always wrong.

And no. Love is not faith based. You are making an equivocation error at best.

I'd love for you to show any substantive errors that cannot be explained by something such as a different point of view, different audience written to, or something like that. The Catholic Church has context to tell us what is meant by what was written in the NT.


How about the ten year time span between the birth of Jesus in Luke and in Matthew?
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It would take 5.5 miles of water to cover Everest. Your calculation is a bit off.
Today, you'd be right. But Everest wasn't always 5.5 miles tall. You do realize that the Big Island is about 90% under water, and from its base, is more than 30,000 feet tall?
What about it? Yes, all you have is faith. The worst basis in the world for belief. When faith runs contrary to evidence faith is almost always wrong.
Faith seldom contradicts evidence. It contradicts conclusions drawn from evidence. Faith sees evidence from a different perspective.
And no. Love is not faith based. You are making an equivocation error at best.
Love exists, and is entirely faith based, in its true form.
How about the ten year time span between the birth of Jesus in Luke and in Matthew?
You'll have to quote that for me. But for a couple of points, Matthew was a Jew and wrote to Jews, Luke was a Gentile writing to Gentiles. Different audiences, different perspectives, different approaches, to the same events. Also, the Gospels aren't really history either. They place events in history, and speak of them, but they aren't, by and large, histories.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Today, you'd be right. But Everest wasn't always 5.5 miles tall. You do realize that the Big Island is about 90% under water, and from its base, is more than 30,000 feet tall?

Again, so what? Please, you really need to learn at least a little basic geology. During man's time on the Earth Everest has always been over 5 miles tall.

Faith seldom contradicts evidence.

Wrong again.

It contradicts conclusions drawn from evidence. Faith sees evidence from a different perspective.Love exists, and is entirely faith based, in its true form.

In other words it contradicts evidence. Creationists tend no to understand the nature of evidence. And in regards to love, you are at best making an equivocation error. I am truly sorry for you if your belief that another's love for you is faith based.

You'll have to quote that for me. But for a couple of points, Matthew was a Jew and wrote to Jews, Luke was a Gentile writing to Gentiles. Different audiences, different perspectives, different approaches, to the same events. Also, the Gospels aren't really history either. They place events in history, and speak of them, but they aren't, by and large, histories.

I am constantly amazed at the ignorance of some Christians when it comes to their own holy book. First Matthew was probably not the author of Matthew and Luke may not have been the author of Luke. The gospels are all anonymously written. Matthew puts Jesus's birth before Herod died. Herod died in 4 BC. Luke cites the Census of Quirinius. That was in the year 6 AD.

Your "different audiences different perspectives" is about as lame of an argument as one can come up with.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Again, so what? Please, you really need to learn at least a little basic geology. During man's time on the Earth Everest has always been over 5 miles tall.
So where, in Genesis, does it say when the flood happened? Also, there's a lot of ways that the flood account can be interpreted. Some say it wasn't really a global flood, some say it was. I don't really care, God says it, in an authoritative way, and I believe it. That's faith. The earth is constantly changing.
The Geological Society
It is geological fact that the subcontinent of India collided with the Eurasian Continent and as they did so, helped the Himalayas form. So no, Everest wasn't always 5.5 miles tall. And it's probable that the deepest parts of the ocean weren't as deep as they are now. So all things considered, a worldwide flood is possible.
Wrong again.
Your opinion, welcome to it.
In other words it contradicts evidence. Creationists tend no to understand the nature of evidence. And in regards to love, you are at best making an equivocation error. I am truly sorry for you if your belief that another's love for you is faith based.
In other words, you see things your way, and I see things my way. You tend not to understand the nature of coming to a conclusion, be it right or wrong. You tend to stick to your conclusion, right or wrong.
My wife's love for me is faith based. I see her actions toward me and our home and interpret that as love. She could be doing it just to keep busy, though, no?
I am constantly amazed at the ignorance of some Christians when it comes to their own holy book. First Matthew was probably not the author of Matthew and Luke may not have been the author of Luke. The gospels are all anonymously written. Matthew puts Jesus's birth before Herod died. Herod died in 4 BC. Luke cites the Census of Quirinius. That was in the year 6 AD.

Your "different audiences different perspectives" is about as lame of an argument as one can come up with.
We have evidence that Matthew wrote Matthew and Luke wrote Luke, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote independently of each other. We do not know for certain that Herod died in 4 BC. Flavius Josephus says he died in 1BC. A transcription error in 1544 moved it. It is also Josephus who misdated the census.
but once again, you're talking about how the world calculated the date, not an error in Scripture...
 
Upvote 0