What would be the evidence for ex nihilo creation?

[AV1611VET]

You have your beleifs, you reject anything that contradicts them regardless of wether it is verfied or not, and then come to a scientific discussion board for what? Kicks?

Again, let me point out, this is a Christian forum, not a scientific discussion board.

As much as you'd like to hijack it, you'll have to settle for us Christians being the host, and you atheists being the guests of honor.

 

[joey444]

Again, let me point out, this is a Christian forum, not a scientific discussion board.

As much as you'd like to hijack it, you'll have to settle for us Christians being the host, and you atheists being the guests of honor.

Creation and evolution.


Also, science isn't an atheistic thing. The first theist that supports evolution that comes to mind is TEBeliever, but there's many others.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Again, let me point out, this is a Christian forum, not a scientific discussion board.

actually the title of the board is:
Welcome to the Scientific Discussion Forum (also know as the Evolutionary/Creationist debate forum)!

you appear to be confusing this with the origins theology forum at:
http://www.christianforums.com/f143-origins-theology.html

most people are here for the scientific discussion and not KJVO and such strictly religious answers.

 

[Tomk80]

You showed me ex nihilo creation didn't happen???

Okie-doke, you want me to change my signature now, I suppose?

Given your discussions here that would indeed be the intellectual honest thing to do.

But you are not intellectually honest. You don't care whether your view of God actually is correct. You don't care if your view of the bible is actually correct. You don't care about truth. All you care about is upholding your own view on the bible, no matter whether it is correct or not, and thus you have started worshipping your own thoughts instead of God.

 

[JohnR7]

most people are here for the scientific discussion and not KJVO and such strictly religious answers.

Then they should not be attacking the integrity of the Bible, they should go to a more appropriate forum to deal with issues like that.

Unless of course they have scientific evidence to back up their opinions. In this case, they don't have the evidence to back up what they are saying.

Of course they don't have much in the way of evidence for anything when it comes to the theory of evolution. Inless you want to consider the idea we are here so we must have evolved as evidence.

While there maybe a lot of unknowns in terms of how life began. We do know one thing. It could not have happened by chance. The odds of that happening would be the same odds of winning the lottery 1000 times in a row. Has that ever happened in the history of the lottery?

 

[rambot]

Then they should not be attacking the integrity of the Bible, they should go to a more appropriate forum to deal with issues like that.

I feel obliged to point out, John, that they don't attack the integrity of the Bible. They DO attack the integrity of your understanding of the Bible.
And if your understanding of the Bible runs contradictory to what scientific evidence seems to point to, what do you expect?

It could not have happened by chance. The odds of that happening would be the same odds of winning the lottery 1000 times in a row. Has that ever happened in the history of the lottery?

HA! Merely by providing that analogy means that you MUST believe there IS SOME (however remote) chance.

So are you staying with your "could not have happenned by chance" (impossible to DISPROVE) OR with you "basically impossible but not quite impossible" argument?

 

[AV1611VET]

Given your discussions here that would indeed be the intellectual honest thing to do.

But you are not intellectually honest. You don't care whether your view of God actually is correct. You don't care if your view of the bible is actually correct. You don't care about truth. All you care about is upholding your own view on the bible, no matter whether it is correct or not, and thus you have started worshipping your own thoughts instead of God.

That was a tad on the cruel side, Tom, but I'll take it for what it's worth. I like to think I back up my beliefs with Scripture, but then it gets down to a matter of your interpretation vs. my interpretation --- so it looks like either way, I lose.

In any case, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, and I'm sure you're not, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

HA! Merely by providing that analogy means that you MUST believe there IS SOME (however remote) chance.

Not even close, rambot.

Scientists define anything with odds of 10[sup]50[/sup] or higher as a mathematical impossibility.

I'm sure the odds of winning the lottery 1000 times in a row qualifies as an impossibility.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not even close, rambot.

Scientists define anything with odds of 10[sup]50[/sup] or higher as a mathematical impossibility.

Not in the least. There is no firm definition as to when something is so improbable as to be considered impossible. But the above is just wrong. If the probability is 10^-50, but the process is repeated 10^60 times, then it suddenly becomes a certainty. All probabilities are relative to the situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in the least. There is no firm definition as to when something is so improbable as to be considered impossible. But the above is just wrong. If the probability is 10^-50, but the process is repeated 10^60 times, then it suddenly becomes a certainty. All probabilities are relative to the situation.

Chalnoth, have a nice day, okay?

 

[Adriac]

I'm sure the odds of winning the lottery 1000 times in a row qualifies as an impossibility.

How is that, then? What physical law must be broken for it to occur? It is fantastically unlikely, true— but no more unlikely than any other outcome of a thousand lotteries.

 

[AV1611VET]

How is that, then? What physical law must be broken for it to occur? It is fantastically unlikely, true— but no more unlikely than any other outcome of a thousand lotteries.

Not just "any other outcome of a thousand lotteries" --- by the same man.

I believe this universe is something like 10[sup]70[/sup] seconds old.

That means that even if someone won the lottery every 100 times per second since the universe "supposedly" started, he wouldn't even be anywhere near complete.

 

[shernren]

Do you not even read my signature? Do you even know what sola scriptura means? Have you ever met a real live KJVO? Do you know how comical "feeding" a sola scripturist scientific data that contradicts Scripture looks?

I realize only a sola scripturist knows how a sola scripturist thinks, but let's not go overboard the other way, okay?

p.s. Did you happen to read my post from about a month ago, when I said I won't buy a Bible that has the word 'mixt' spelled 'mixed' in Numbers 11:4? Even if it claims to be a King James Bible?

[bible]Numbers 11:4[/bible]

It's not sola scriptura you are practicing here. It's solo scriptura.

Sola Scriptura should not be used as a “me and my bible” hermeneutic which allows “each individual Christian” to maintain their own theological view point on a given doctrine. That is not what the Reformers intended, and it is not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches. If you believe that Sola Scriptura means “each individual Christian should, on an individual level, use the Bible alone in understanding and determining the corpus of biblical truth” you have completely missed the idea and point of the doctrine itself.


http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/McMahonSolaScriptura.htm

Solo scriptura is beset with numerous theological problems, the most significant being the problem of the canon. The canon is the list of books which are inspired by God. According to adherents of solo scriptura, the Bible is the only authority because its books are inspired, but the Bible nowhere includes an inspired list of inspired books. What this means is that solo scriptura can assert that Scripture is the only authority, but it cannot define with any absolute certainty what Scripture is. When adherents do attempt to define and defend a particular canon, they cannot do so using the Bible as their only authority. In order for solo scriptura to be true, the Bible would have to include not only all of the inspired books of the Bible, but also an inspired table of contents telling us which books were really inspired. However, even this would not be enough, for we would not know that the table of contents was inspired apart from an extra-scriptural divine intervention or another inspired document telling us that the original list was inspired. Of course then we would just move the problem back another step, and so on into infinity.
Most proponents of solo scriptura simply ignore the problem of the canon as if the Bibles they hold in their hands dropped whole and complete from heaven. Yet this is not what happened in actual history. The individual books of Scripture were written over a period of one thousand years. Even the New Testament books were written over a period of decades and only gradually found their way to all of the churches. Numerous apocryphal gospels and epistles were written, some of which were considered authoritative in certain churches. It took time for the New Testament canon of twenty-seven books that we have today to be universally recognized. The doctrine of solo scriptura presupposes a complete and closed canon that it cannot account for or defend on its own principles. This fundamental self-contradiction is one of its most obvious flaws.

http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Mathison.html


(emphasis added) If I took the underlined part and replaced "Bibles" with "KJVs" then I'd have a picture-perfect portrait of you and your KJV-onlyism.

This is not sola scriptura.

 

[nvxplorer]

Is Jesus guilty of bibliolatry, in your opinion?

The only Jesus I know washes dishes at a restaurant I frequent. You'd have to ask him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sola Scriptura should not be used as a “me and my bible” hermeneutic which allows “each individual Christian” to maintain their own theological view point on a given doctrine.

Sola scriptura (Latin for scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Although there is no agreed-upon technical definition among Protestants, it generally meant that Scripture is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals. The key implication of the slogan is that interpretations of how to understand and apply Scripture would not bear the same authority as Scripture itself, and that therefore the individual Christian is subject not to the interpretations of any ecclesiastical authority but only to his own interpretation. The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Roman Catholic Church by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible's authority and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority in addition to the Bible. Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Prima scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the primary source of doctrine, but that understanding can be improved by reference to other sources.

Disclaimer: I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Protestant.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only Jesus I know washes dishes at a restaurant I frequent. You'd have to ask him.

Ask him what happened to his coat.

 

[Chalnoth]

Disclaimer: I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Protestant.

Your faith icon says otherwise.

 

[Tomk80]

That was a tad on the cruel side, Tom, but I'll take it for what it's worth. I like to think I back up my beliefs with Scripture, but then it gets down to a matter of your interpretation vs. my interpretation --- so it looks like either way, I lose.

Yup, it was a tad on the cruel side. But the problem is that you are willfully ignoring a lot of information, both on scripture, it's interpretation and real world evidence. It's not that you investigate it and then reject it, you just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. So although a tad cruel, I cannot help but think it is also awfully close to the truth.

In any case, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, and I'm sure you're not, either.

That much is true

 

[AV1611VET]

Your faith icon says otherwise.

Not hardly --- and I wasn't aware there's a faith icon for 'Protestant'.

 

[rambot]

Not even close, rambot.

Scientists define anything with odds of 1050 or higher as a mathematical impossibility.

Those odds qualify for single events that occur over a rather small period of time. OR, the "impossiblity" of a certain action. Evolution has occurred of billions and billions of years of time.
And this is the ridiculously obvious (and surprisingly avoided) question of:
Was this "guy" trying to calculate the likelihood that EVOLUTION HAS occurred? That evolution is the SOLE source of life?
OR (and this is what i'm leaning to...because it's the most obvious one):
The possibility of the WORLD EVOLVING into THIS PARTICULAR end point.


Also, I am COMPLETELY unsure as to why we accepted your original 10^1032 or whatever it was....

I mean, how could we really take that seriously? Is there a link? How could you even calculate the possibility of that in an academically meaningful way? I mean: What would be included?
*certain meteors hitting the earth certain ways (and those certain meteorites having certain things on them)
*certain orbits, speeds, velocities, occuring?
*certain geological and physical actions?
Does it start PREphysical earth? Does it start from the moment life came onto the planet?
Perhaps this number could even be higher. My point is that, trying to calculate this number is a silly, silly endevour.