My theory on creation.

[tevans9129]

Technically, man was not made first in Genesis 2, but it's a different telling than Genesis 1. And it appears to contradict, though I don't believe it does.

Would you reference the verses that you are using for this view?

 

[tevans9129]

Genesis 1 is what is known as a frame story

Does scripture support that idea and if so, can you reference some verses for me?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really like to ignore the phrase, "in the beginning" don't you? Did I ask if natural laws exist or, did I ask when, where and how did they come into existence?

Nope, I am not ignoring anything. I merely answered your questions as well as they could be answered.

Oh but I can, I have the belief that Scriptures that were written approximately sixth century BC claimed that the Jewish people would be scattered from their homeland throughout the nations but would be gathered back to that homeland in the latter years.

Vague prophecies are automatically failed prophesies. If not you should be worshiping Nostradamus. He was the king of vague prophecies. His prophecies were very vague and some were "fulfilled" multiple times.

They were scattered, starting in 70-135 AD and on May 14, 1948 was once again back in their homeland as a nation and speaking their original language after almost 2k years an event never before or since, done in history.That is a written record proven with scripture and secular records.

Wrong again, the return to Israel had roots that began in the 1800's. It was merely intensified greatly after WWII. The Bible also has failed prophecies, some of the spectacularly failed.

That is one example, would you like a few hundred more?

I seriously doubt if you have them. For example I have heard the claim of "hundreds of prophecies for Jesus" and most are just quote mined Bible verses taken out of context and are not prophecies at all.

 

[Speedwell]

You really like to ignore the phrase, "in the beginning" don't you? Did I ask if natural laws exist or, did I ask when, where and how did they come into existence?

Oh but I can, I have the belief that Scriptures that were written approximately sixth century BC claimed that the Jewish people would be scattered from their homeland throughout the nations but would be gathered back to that homeland in the latter years.

They were scattered, starting in 70-135 AD and on May 14, 1948 was once again back in their homeland as a nation and speaking their original language after almost 2k years an event never before or since, done in history.That is a written record proven with scripture and secular records.

That is one example, would you like a few hundred more?

So get on with it. You asked a question. You want to make it seem as if the question was being dodged (it's not, but this is your play, so carry on). Now what?

The usual creationist move at this juncture is to claim that the question is being dodged because the answer might have to have God in it. What's your move going to be?

 

[tevans9129]

Yet another idiotic attempt to conflate physics with theology?

Perhaps, do you believe God created the heavens and the earth and all therein?

BTW, what "physics" prove the universe was created from nothing? The honest have admitted they have no idea where, when and how space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence but yet it is rather obvious, by natural laws, that they did, would you agree?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does scripture support that idea and if so, can you reference some verses for me?

When Day Six comes to a close in Genesis 1, Adam & Eve are both in existence and married.

In Genesis 2, we see God building the chapel (Garden of Eden), then bringing the bride to the groom in a wedding ceremony.

Most educatees prefer the Justice o' the Peace to a chapel though.

My pastor won't marry two people who are shacking up or previously divorced, saying it's hypocritical for a bride to wear white and have a big wedding.

To which I absolutely agree.

They make a mockery of purity.

 

[tevans9129]

Sure, but if someone cannot ask proper questions one has to do the best that one can.

OK, can you quote my question that you consider to not be a "proper question" and then can you quote your answer that is the best that you can offer for it? IF, the question was not "proper" why not ask for clarification before giving any type of answer, would that not be reasonable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, can you quote my question that you consider to not be a "proper question" and then can you quote your answer that is the best that you can offer for it? IF, the question was not "proper" why not ask for clarification before giving any type of answer, would that not be reasonable?

Too busy to bother.

Just be more careful in the future.

 

[tevans9129]

Nope, I am not ignoring anything. I merely answered your questions as well as they could be answered.

OK, then why did you not answer this question if you are "not ignoring anything"?

Did I ask if natural laws exist or, did I ask when, where and how did they come into existence?

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps, do you believe God created the heavens and the earth and all therein?

BTW, what "physics" prove the universe was created from nothing? The honest have admitted they have no idea where, when and how space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence but yet it is rather obvious, by natural laws, that they did, would you agree?

Who said physics proves the universe was created from nothing? There is, evidently, still something about the phrase "nobody knows" that you don't get. That's one of the things nobody knows. And why do you falsely characterize it as an "admission?"
And lesliedellow is right. The proposition that God created the universe has little to do with the physics of the big bang.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, then why did you not answer this question if you are "not ignoring anything"?

It was just you complaining for no good reason.

You asked a rather nonsensical question. And I do believe that that question was answered for you anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who said physics proves the universe was created from nothing? There is, evidently, still something about the phrase "nobody knows" that you don't get. That's one of the things nobody knows. And why do you falsely characterize it as an "admission?"

I think that too many of them misunderstand what is meant by the phrase "A universe from nothing".

 

[tevans9129]

You want to make it seem as if the question was being dodged (it's not, but this is your play, so carry on). Now what?

Really, then would you quote the answer that the person asked the following question gave?

Did I ask if natural laws exist or, did I ask when, where and how did they come into existence?

I believe your answer to the question would be, "unknown" but you were not specifically asked the question, were you?

 

[lesliedellow]

Perhaps, do you believe God created the heavens and the earth and all therein?

I think God is ultimately responsible for Creation, but that does not mean that I think Genesis contains a physical account of the universe's origin. I am quite sure it doesn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, what "physics" prove the universe was created from nothing?

When I first came here, I prayed to the LORD for a clear-cut challenge I could issue to those who walked the halls of higher academia, concerning evidence of creatio ex nihilo.

My Apple Challenge is the result, and I consider it to be my magnum opus here; my single best challenge & post ever.

My Apple Challenge:

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

 

[Speedwell]

Really, then would you quote the answer that the person asked the following question gave?



I believe your answer to the question would be, "unknown" but you were not specifically asked the question, were you?

No, and I would not be so ready to assume, as SZ was, that your ignorance of such a basic fact about big bang theory was not feigned.

 

[tevans9129]

The usual creationist move at this juncture is to claim that the question is being dodged because the answer might have to have God in it. What's your move going to be?

Apparently, I am not the "usual" as I say up front that I have no illusions about proving God with empirical science to those who do not believe the Judeo-Christian scriptures are what they claim to be.

My argument is with those that present their "theories" as if they are fact. I would not have an argument at all, IF, the person was just honest upfront and admitted the answers to my questions are not known, but is what they "believe" to be true. It is an admission by honest science people and using the BB for an example, is their best understanding at this time.

Apparently, and for some, it seems that admitting something is their belief brings them down from their elevated level to that of the lowly who "believe" God did it, IMO.

 

[tevans9129]

Too busy to bother.

Translation....I cannot.

 

[tevans9129]

You asked a rather nonsensical question. And I do believe that that question was answered for you anyway.

Interesting, you are not "too busy" to respond to this but you are too busy to quote the question and your answer, is that about right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Translation....IW cannot.

Wrong again. Some things are simply so obviously wrong that there is no point digging up the quotes.

Once again, just try to ask proper questions in the future. I have a feeling that this is beyond your abilities.