My theory on creation.

[AV1611VET]

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

"Theory" is a synonym for "guess, assumption, or even idea."

Ever heard of a "pet theory"?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

"Theory" is a synonym for "guess, assumption, or even idea."

Ever heard of a "pet theory"?

"Scientific Theory" is not a synonym for "guess, assumption, or even idea."

Ever heard of a "scientific theory", this being a science subforum and all....?

 

[bhsmte]

"Scientific Theory" is not a synonym for "guess, assumption, or even idea."

Ever heard of a "scientific theory", this being a science subforum and all....?

Yep, that was my line of thinking. The word "theory" is used too often by many.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, that was my line of thinking. The word "theory" is used too often by many.

You mean like Kleenex, Scotch tape, Xerox and other proprietary eponyms?

You all shoulda got that word trademarked, then you coulda hadda monopoly on it.

Sorry about your luck.

 

[pitabread]

AV1611VET be trollin'...

 

[tevans9129]

Anything else after It is just fiction.

Do you really believe that and if so, can you prove it with scripture?

 

[dmmesdale]

Nobody here is talking about science. Therefore, there's no theory testing.

It can be tested by the explanatory power to competing models.

His idea does not go against Scripture, so it's a good theory.
By the way, evolution in no way contradicts creationism.

The two are mutually exclusive esp blind watchmaker which does not allow the supernatural in the first place. Blind watchmaker is atheistic and so is evolution as depicted in textbooks. Everyone agrees on change over time. That is a far cry from blind watchmaker and common descent as they define CD.

 

[tevans9129]

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

Just so there is no misunderstanding as I have been down this road before, many times. Are you agreeing to respond in like manner as I offered to do? Yes or no.

"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?"

 

[Speedwell]

Just so there is no misunderstanding as I have been down this road before, many times. Are you agreeing to respond in like manner as I offered to do? Yes or no.

"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?"

Yes.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

Tl dr.

Its not a theory, its just a belief.

Also, invoking magic when discussing physical reality makes everything possible and therefore explains nothing.

 

[tevans9129]

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

Just so there is no misunderstanding as I have been down this road before, many times. Are you agreeing to respond in like manner as I offered to do? Yes or no.

"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?"

IF, your answer is yes, I will go back to the beginning of the thread and answer every question that you have asked me in the order they were received. I would also expect you to reciprocate in like manner, so, do we have a deal?

 

[tevans9129]

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

Sorry for the confusion. Since this was in my OP, I thought it was evident that I was presenting a view of a spiritual explanation, not science and therefore using the common English definition of "theory". I realize that some want to use their own definition of "theory" but that does not preclude others from using the common English one, do you think?

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.

With that being said, I think I can prove my version of where, when and how space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence and, in what sequence just as well as the BB proponents can there views.

 

[tevans9129]

Yes.

Super, perhaps this can be productive in some way. I will be back with you shortly as I need to take care of a couple of things and then I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in this thread, both yours and mine, fair?

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry for the confusion. Since this was in my OP, I thought it was evident that I was presenting a view of a spiritual explanation, not science and therefore using the common English definition of "theory". I realize that some want to use their own definition of "theory" but that does not preclude others from using the common English one, do you think?



With that being said, I think I can prove my version of where, when and how space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence and, in what sequence just as well as the BB proponents can there views.

I think the bottom line here is, what is your evidence to support your claims. We will wait patiently for you to provide the same.

 

[Speedwell]

Super, perhaps this can be productive in some way. I will be back with you shortly as I need to take care of a couple of things and then I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in this thread, both yours and mine, fair?

Sure, why not? It should be easy since I've only asked you one question so far that I really want an answer to: What physicists are you consulting who claim they know what happened before the big bang?

 

[Subduction Zone]

IF, your answer is yes, I will go back to the beginning of the thread and answer every question that you have asked me in the order they were received. I would also expect you to reciprocate in like manner, so, do we have a deal?

I will answer any new questions that you post to the best of my ability. I will not dig through old posts.

 

[tevans9129]

Good for you. Just so you understand that rejecting your view in the matter of Genesis is not the same as rejecting God's authorship of the universe and man, and our salvation through the death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.

When I quote God's word verbatim just as it is written, how is that my "view"?

Can this verse be taken as it is written or, is it a metaphor for something?

“For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, NKJV)

IF, we cannot believe one part of scripture, why should we believe any of it?

 

[Speedwell]

When I quote God's word verbatim just as it is written, how is that my "view"?

Quoting scripture verbatim isn't a "view." I was talking about the interpretation which follows.

Can this verse be taken as it is written or, is it a metaphor for something?

“For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, NKJV)

Clearly it is to be taken as written.

IF, we cannot believe one part of scripture, why should we believe any of it?

I believe all of it. It is all the inspired word of God. I just don't believe that the creation stories in Genesis are, or were intended to be read as 100% accurate literal history.

What physicists are you consulting who claim they know what happened before the big bang?

 

[tevans9129]

Because NOBODY KNOWS what happened before. If you have trouble understanding that sentence, ask questions and we will try to explain it to you. Look up the words in a dictionary if you have to. The two important words are 'nobody' and 'knows'. They go together: nobody knows.

That I can understand, however, that is not the answer I sometimes receive, such as, "they were always there...they were created by the BB...they were not needed for the BB, they just are" etc. So which of these answers are correct? IF, everyone provided an honest answer, not known, cannot answer the question etc. then there would be no need for further questions on that subject would there?

 

[lesliedellow]

When I quote God's word verbatim just as it is written, how is that my "view"?

Can this verse be taken as it is written or, is it a metaphor for something?

“For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4, NKJV)

IF, we cannot believe one part of scripture, why should we believe any of it?

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.

I don't remeber Genesis saying anything about God supplying energy from himself. Maybe that is your interpretation - and, if it is your interpretation, what makes it more authoritative than anybody else's?