My theory on creation.

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Correct, it takes no time at all to respond to nonsense. You want me to do some work in refuting nonsense that was already refuted.

I see that you still have not been able to ask proper questions.

 

[tevans9129]

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

I have no earthly idea how to answer that question. Since on an individual level, I would not have the provable evidence of scripture along with all of the circumstantial evidence to base my answer on.

Perhaps the best answer that I can come up with is that I would not even try. That is why I do not try to convince non-Bible believers to believe in scripture, I can only present my reasons for believing.

 

[lesliedellow]

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?

If that's your magnum opus, I dread to think what your parvum opus looks like.

 

[tevans9129]

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

How can I possibly ask a proper question when you refuse to give me an example of my "improper" question?

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?

 

[tevans9129]

I see that you still have not been able to ask proper questions.

I would say that makes us even, since you cannot give a plausible answer to questions as they are asked. Like this one...

IF, the question was not "proper" why not ask for clarification before giving any type of answer, would that not be reasonable?

Is that not a "proper" question? If not, how would you word the question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I possibly ask a proper question when you refuse to give me an example of my "improper" question?

Avoid overly vague terms. Don't ask loaded questions. You should have been able to figure that out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say that makes us even, since you cannot give a plausible answer to questions as they are asked. Like this one...

Please, don't make false claims about others. I said that I was not going to bother.

Is that not a "proper" question? If not, how would you word the question?

It has an assumption in the question so no, it is not a proper question.

 

[tevans9129]

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

What translation are you using? I checked with five of the most used Protestant versions and none of them have anything in chapter 1 about marriage. Perhaps I should make clear that I use a literal interpretation of scripture when it makes perfectly good sense just as it is written. I only go looking for metaphors, idioms, symbolism, etc. when there seems to be compelling reasons to do so. I take Revelation 22 seriously and literally.

“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18–19, NKJV)

 

[Subduction Zone]

What translation are you using? I checked with five of the most used Protestant versions and none of them have anything in chapter 1 about marriage. Perhaps I should make clear that I use a literal interpretation of scripture when it makes perfectly good sense just as it is written. I only go looking for metaphors, idioms, symbolism, etc. when there seems to be compelling reasons to do so. I take Revelation 22 seriously and literally.

“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18–19, NKJV)

What "book" do you think that the author was referring to?

ETA: So I see that you are ready to reinterpret the Bible when it says that the Earth is flat. How about when it says that there was a worldwide flood?

 

[tevans9129]

Who said physics proves the universe was created from nothing?

I feel no obligation to answer questions by others if they do not answer my questions.

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

Just to be clear, this is about "before" the BB, not after. IOW, it is about how, when and where space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence, not an explanation of what happened afterwards.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

What do attempts to prove the existence of God with empirical science (a bootless enterprise in any case) have to do with whether the scriptures are what you claim them to be?

Is this discussion supposed to be about theism versus atheism, or about a Protestant religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theist and atheist together?

 

[tevans9129]

What "book" do you think that the author was referring to?

You and I have different views, opinions, about numerous subjects so I will make you an offer...I will answer every question that you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers and will address each and every point that you make, IF, you will agree to respond in the exact same manner. Otherwise, I have little desire in trading talking points, IMO, they prove little if anything. Is that fair?

 

[tevans9129]

What do attempts to prove the existence of God with empirical science (a bootless enterprise in any case) have to do with whether the scriptures are what you claim them to be?

I will make you the same offer I just made to SZ.

You and I have different views, opinions, about numerous subjects so I will make you an offer...I will answer every question that you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers and will address each and every point that you make, IF, you will agree to respond in the exact same manner. Otherwise, I have little desire in trading talking points, IMO, they prove little if anything. Is that fair?

 

[lesliedellow]

Just to be clear, this is about "before" the BB, not after. IOW, it is about how, when and where space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence, not an explanation of what happened afterwards.

I have no idea what preceded the big bang, and neither have you. I just have a belief about who was ultimately responsible for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What translation are you using?

The KJB.

Anything else after It is just fiction.

I checked with five of the most used Protestant versions and none of them have anything in chapter 1 about marriage.

Ahem ... don't get me started on Protestants, or I'll get moderated.

But for the record Genesis 1 is a frame story.

QV please: Frame Story

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea what preceded the big bang,

The Fall.

 

[lesliedellow]

The Fall.

Hardly.

 

[Speedwell]

I will make you the same offer I just made to SZ.

OK, here's the question: What physicists are you consulting who claim they know what happened before the big bang?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and I have different views, opinions, about numerous subjects so I will make you an offer...I will answer every question that you may ask me with plausible, verifiable answers and will address each and every point that you make, IF, you will agree to respond in the exact same manner. Otherwise, I have little desire in trading talking points, IMO, they prove little if anything. Is that fair?

That is fine. Why did you dodge the question that I asked?

 

[bhsmte]

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.

Theories are supposed to have objective evidence to support, what the theory states. I don't see any of that in your post.

So, this is basically, your personal opinion.