NewStats: 3,263,925 , 8,181,912 topics. Date: Sunday, 08 June 2025 at 07:34 PM 1c4g406z3e3g |
Creating From Nothing - Christianity Etc (2) - Nairaland 4s2t41
Creating From Nothing (3830 Views)
| mazaje(m): 2:54pm On May 27, 2010 |
Deep Sight: Does oneness of infinity have a voice?. . . . |
| mazaje(m): 3:12pm On May 27, 2010 |
viaro: You are just arguing with yourself here, pls learn to read. . . .I made a very simple point and the point is that planetary formations shows that the sun which holds the planet in orbit comes first before the planets, and that does not agree with the genesis that says the sun was cteated before the earth, how you gave that a life of its own and ran away arguing with your self is what I just can not understand. . . . I laugh at your last line above ^^ : 'evidence that shows that the stars are not placed or hanging in some elusive firmament as the bible puts it' - that is a big whopper, dude. What is the firmament, mazaje? From Roget's Thesaurus, the firmament is known as 'the celestial regions as seen from the earth', which yields the understanding of the heavens or space. [Wikipedia - 'The term "heaven" may refer to the physical heavens, the sky or the seemingly endless expanse of the universe beyond, the traditional literal meaning of the term in English']. So, if the stars are not placed in the firmament as the Bible puts it, where are they placed, mazaje? Will you stop lying? From wikipedia. . . ."The Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew "raqiya`" (pronounced /raki'ja/ in English) meaning an extended solid surface or dome, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground[1] in many Near Eastern cosmologies". Hebrew The word is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning "to spread out" by stamping, stretching, beating, or making broad,, e.g. the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat, or "to make a spreading (of clouds)".[1] Thus, in the Bible, Elihu asks Job "[b]Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal[/b] (Job 37:18)?" [edit] Biblical Illustrations The word is mentioned in the King James Bible, in the course of the Genesis creation narrative of (Genesis 1:6–  :God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. According to Genesis 1.20, the firmament is above the Earth: Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens". The Jewish Encyclopaedia describes the firmament as follows: The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. T[b]o this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse[/b].[1] . Which firmament is it that separates the waters above from the waters below?. . . .Where is that firmament?. . Both these questions/objections have been addressed above - but as we can see, not in one verse does the Bible concludes that the stars were created SOLELY (or "specifically" as you now argue) just for giving light upon the earth - unless you just want to skip Genesis 1:14 which you quoted, so you can keep arguing your misgivings unfairly into the texts in front of your eyes. It does . . .Here it is again. . . Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Thanks for that lecture - but dude, you tend to argue blindly these days. Although you may never have read the Bible talking about the "CONSTELLATIONS" of the heavens (Isaiah 13:10) apart from other cosmological entities like the sun, the moon, the stars, etc.; yet in very plain fact the Bible actually recognizes these extensions of the galaxies as in that verse just quoted. I have also pointed out that the earth was not created before the stars, in so far as the Bible acknowledges that the angels were already present in the created Universe and witnessed the creation of the Earth (Job 38:4-7). You are lying, what have the angles got to do with anything? Earth was already in existence before the sun and the stars were created on the fourth day of creation. . . The Universe did not just have a "cause" - to let it stand at that is sheepish indeed, because we know that even astronomy and cosmology talk about this "cause" and point to a 'singularity'; yet they know that the singularity did not create itself, and the only thing we can safely say now from their researches is that they are unable to formulate theories that go back before or earlier than the singularity. Sure they are making progress, only time will tell how far they go, as i have said earlier it was just about 10 years ago that we started to discover that some of the stars were solar systems like ours. . . . What people like me are interested in, however, is not the pretentious argument you've been making and then excusing yourself from ORIGINS SCIENCE. The densest thing to ever appear in your post is for you to argue about "origins" and yet say that you are not arguing "origins" - when I asked you to explain the difference, I don't read ANYWHERE that you have tried to explain any difference, or have you? Origins of the universe is inconclusive as long as scientist have shown but they are making progress. . . . So we'll wait and see. . . . Nothing new - but at least they all know that the Universe did not create itself; nor did it emerge completely on its own without having been brought into existence. You hide behind your atheist excuse and produce nothing other than the noise so far that makes me laugh. Sure the universe had a cause, Since you claim to know the cause can you then provide evidence to show that your God is the cause and not some other God that also claims to be the cause too?. . . . Please stop skidding with your repeated excuses. Just flat out deny as you did earlier that NO ATHEIST ever thought the Universe was eternal - just try. I did not conclude that ALL atheists everywhere made the same inference; but you keep waving this excuse everytime I challenge previous assertion, and something just tells me you're either deliberately being mischievous or just plain ignorant of what you tend to argue. Stop chasing your tail and crying at the same time, how does the view of some atheist help your argument? So what if some atheist hold that view? Some theist still believe that the earth is flat ,no? keep on chasing shadows, i have noticed that is the only thing you are good at. . . |
| Re: Creating From Nothing by Nobody: 4:29pm On May 27, 2010 |
|
edit
|
| DeepSight(m): 4:31pm On May 27, 2010 |
mazaje: Having been shown that there can be no voice without energy, and that energy tranlates to matter. . . this is the best you could come back with? ? ? |
| Re: Creating From Nothing by Nobody: 4:44pm On May 27, 2010 |
|
High mazaje,Deepsight and viaro, before i this honorable discussion let me know the basis of the discussion and the view point of each of u Thank you |
| viaro: 4:57pm On May 27, 2010 |
toba: The basis of my discussion with my pal mazaje is what the topic suggests in plain language: CREATION (ie., 'Creating From Nothing'). If there was any other meaning to "creation", let mazaje let us know. 
|
| DeepSight(m): 4:57pm On May 27, 2010 |
toba: ^^^ I am not sure that I qualify as a discussant in this thread yet. I have made only two very off-tangent posts so far. However it seems strange to me that after the great lengths that Signor Viaro and Herr Mazaje have gone to in presenting their views, you would be asking them what the subject is and what their views are? ? ? ? ? Come now, Toba. |
| Re: Creating From Nothing by Nobody: 6:54pm On May 27, 2010 |
Deep Sight:DS dont get me wrong. During a long discussion with mazaje yesterday, he said he 'ironically made an assertion with no evidence to same. Today i dont want to be 'ironically' caught. So its better for me to know his stance before we proceed |
| viaro: 7:17pm On May 27, 2010 |
toba: Talking with mazaje is a waste of time. It took me long to see that; and when we pointed out to him that his "rhetorics" (as he called it) does not make for serious discussion, he piped up yet again to say he was VERY serious! When a man is skidding like that, you just ignore him. . . since that's actually what he wants.
|
| viaro: 7:19pm On May 27, 2010 |
mazaje: How am I lying, mazaje - because you really don't have anything to show for the simple request I made? I don't think the discussions I have been having with you is rhetorical - in fact, if you were not discussing "ORIGINS" as you said, what then are you discussing? What essentially is the difference between "Creation" and "Origin" that you assume is rhetorical? How does arguing along those points translate into a "lie"? What exactly have you shown from "ORIGINS SCIENCE" (you can Google) that shows that God did NOT CREATE the Universe? Fine - you have agreed that the Universe had a cause; but you just want to hang it there while completely evading and prevaricating on the precise of our discussion - which are "creation" and "origins"? It's simple really: if you don't want to discuss either creation or origin, I am willing to let it be. But if you want to keep driving your baseless arguments and showing nothing for your assertions, I am also willing to let you drive along your rhetorics and let it be. That does not mean therefore that I was "lying" - in fact, it is such a laugh to read you allege that and yet produce absolutely NOTHING from science to show what you argue on ORIGINS. mazaje: It mentions only that "He created the stars also", not that the stars were specifically created after the earth came into existence. This is why I went on to show you other verses and discussed them. I am more interested in you discussing those verses I pointed out rather than exploding all over the place and evading them.  mazaje: I have not made a different meaning in the CREATION in the Bible - which is why I cited and discussed verses both from Genesis and other verses that point to creation. Even if the verse in Isaiah is your nightmare, what did you say about Genesis 2:4 that shows that the in Genesis 1 is not a literal 24hr reckoning? In your own tutelage, does a generation amount to just 24hours? And yes, Isaiah mentions "contellations" - since you have been harping like a brainless dump about "other stars" being "solar systems like ours", what is all this flaring up and skidding you're boiling yourself all over again for? Please discuss them - your farting all over the place and polluting the air! mazaje: No verse in Genesis says that the stars were created on the 4th day - it only says that He created the stars also, and I have not changed anything precisely as it is written. You on the other hand are too desperate to read your argument into what is before yours eyes, that is why you cannot show any verse that says that the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth. This is why atheists will jump about anything and yet we have as many different shades of atheism as well, no? mazaje: Oh dude, wake up. I mentioned that Psalm 90:4 shows that time is relative - and here is the verse: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" (KJV). That was a reference to show that what people have argued into Genesis does not necessarily make it so - not even your own misplaced atheism argued into the Bible. mazaje: That's what you have done - reading your own "SOLELY" repeatedly for the stars and never once showing where it was so written in any verse, no? But when I try to discuss, the best (or worst) you can do is disagree - and I don't give two scoobies besides. I have not tried to change anything, and if in any line I had quoted another thing that was not written, then point them out. mazaje: A "day" is NOT ALWAYS a 24hour division of time - I have shown why that is so in Genesis 2:4 which declares "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" - I don't know how many Young Earth Creationists sincerely tell you that a generation = 24 hours time reckoning! You find one, let me know. mazaje: You're becoming a hypocrite! If a version does not suit you, you say it is by the way. But if something is pointed out, you begin to skid and dance around, no? It may well be suited to some to use other words such as you cited, but just so we don't risk funny games here, I deliberately left you the word translated generation (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh). Okay, the hypocrisy here is also 'by the way', lol. |
| viaro: 7:20pm On May 27, 2010 |
mazaje: That's a super-contradiction. If you're not interested in whether a "day" is 24 hours or not, how come you want to force a literal meaning of just 6 "days" for what you argue? It's like saying you don't want to know whether or not we both speak English, but you just want to insist it is English that goes between us! Mazaje, you make me laugh! The YEC will apply a 24 hr interpretation for all mention of a "day" into the Genesis for creation - but when it comes to Genesis 2:4 that mentions the "generations" in the "day" when the heavens and the earth were created, they are either so silent, or excuse the meaning of a "generation" and sweep it under s/history. NONE of them will apply the same 24hrs-day for "generation"; and that is why people do not like to read beyond Genesis when dealing with all aspects of the creation. . . even when Job 38 shows that the angels witnessed the creation of the earth, even though we know that they (angels) were also created and yet Genesis says not a word about the creation of the angels! What I'm trying to point out is this: one should look at the whole picture to get an understanding of creation - YECs and others may not like to do so, and that is why they often run into problems. mazaje: The point you made is a good one - and only buttresses the fact that time in these things is relative rather than static. In particular aspects, a day may represent a thousand years (like in 2 Pet. 3:8); or in other instances, it could represent a year (Ezek. 4:6 - "I have appointed thee each day for a year"  ; but when it comes to "generations" specifically used in reference to the "day" when the heavens and the earth were created, we know that no right thinking person would equate a "generation" to be a 24hr "day". This is why the age of the heavens is not precisely given in the Bible, as it is an indefinite/indertermined period - we know this because no one knows precisely when the angels were created, yet they witnessed the creation of the earth (Job 38:7). The question here is: when were the angels created in any of the 6-days creation week? And, where were they (in the Universe or outside of it) when they witnessed the foundation of the earth being set?These are issues that those who see excuse the "generation" in Genesis 2:4 should grapple with. I cannot for the life of me understand how any YEC would argue that all things were created in a literal 6-day period amounting to about 6,000 years - and yet they cannot tell you which one of those 6-days the angels were created! Do the YECs not believe in angels also? Why are they saying absolutely nothing about the creation of the angels in the 6-day creation week? mazaje: The authors of the footnote (I also have it) know that no one actually considered the moon to be a living deity at the time when Genesis was written. At best, they could have taken those as representatives of whatever deities anyone chose to worship - BUT we know that LIGHT was already mentioned in verse 3 of Genesis 1 before going on to mention other lights in latter verses of that same Genesis 1. I wonder why people are not seeing this point and are just ignoring it! If verse 3 already mentions "light" as I said, how is that tantamount to lying through your teeth?
|
| viaro: 7:21pm On May 27, 2010 |
mazaje: Oh comon, you dunce! Are the angels NOT part of CREATION? Did they create themselves? Are they not part of all that were created? Oh, it is convenient for you to talk about man as part of creation because you can't think outside your little box - but even if you never thought of the creation of the angels, don't take a heart attack: I only cited relevant verses to show you what was happening BEFORE the earth was created. Oh dear, mazaje. . . I doubt you even for a minute considered what I wrote before rushing to complain emptily! mazaje: Good boy! Did you not read that the heavens were also created? Wait mazaje! You are just one pitiful grumbler! What exactly is your original argument?? I have waited long and hard to see you show that the UNIVERSE was NOT CREATED! Choose any source for your ORIGINS SCIENCE and show me that the Universe was NOT CREATED. Your pitiful grumbling here is okay if that is what you can produce for all your arguments - but after reading every line of your objections, I notice you have cleverly dodged that one request I offered you! WHY DID YOU JUST EXCUSE THAT ONE, mazaje? WHY?!? mazaje: So, this excuse and complaints is all you have for the fact that the Bible recognizes and talks about "constellations"? I'm not even trying at all - without effort I can laugh at your silly jokes! mazaje: If one wants to be too technical and pedantic with you, I would say that you're lying and farting all at once. Genesis 1 does not mention a word about the "sun", so what is the verse in Genesis 1 that "specifically" mentioned the SUN? The point is that one could infer that the sun is indirectly inferred in that chapter - and UNLESS YOU GO OUTSIDE Genesis 1, you cannot see that it is actually the sun. That is simply the reason why I went outside Genesis 1 to give you a collective picture of the chronology of Creation. It is for this reason that I mentioned verse 3 that ALREADY mentioned "light" - but no, you will forever ignore that one and pretend that it is not there in the same Genesis 1 you're so eager to force your misgivings into, no? |
| Re: Creating From Nothing by Nobody: 8:12pm On May 27, 2010 |
|
Mazaje, if u really want to be sincere i think the above facts giving by viaro is enough for u to ponder on. Like it was pointed out yesterday that in the law of logic, when matters becomes very complex and proves stronger than what logic itself can prove, some form of probability is allowed. Now a true christian would base hs/her agument in of creation on the bible which is very correct. Now to be sincere the bible we cant claim to be 100% correct yet facts that must be follewd are written therein. For instance the bible is very accurate on morality and salvation. Dont forget also that the bible is not a science text where everything must agree with science in its entirety. The bible was not written by scientist and neither is it written for scientist rather for all. The purpose of religion and science are completely different. Science seeks to describe,explain and predict. The bible tries to tell the creation and to point the way to morality,righteousness and salvation. It should not be suprising that their methods are different and even incompartible. Back to the law of logic. Theres a similarity as regards complexity in man and universe in that both till date have not being duplicated. both are said to have a cause. To date as well science havent told us the cause behind them, but the bible had, meaning that science and the bible are differently oriented. The law of logic can lead one to believe the biblical in that the bible says man and universe were caused and caused by God. Science beleives both were caused but who caused them science cannot tell. If i will argue with u i will base it 60% on the bible rather than on science that doesnt know what caused the universe/created it |
| DeepSight(m): 9:29pm On May 27, 2010 |
|
Viaro - I may be mistaken, but i think with reference to the point about angels, the heavens, and the angels having observed creation. . . I think what Mazaje was pointing at was the fact that the Stars were mentioned in of creation after the Earth was mentioned (for me this is neither here nor there). In attempting to show him that this does not mean that the Stars were not already there, you stated that Angels observed the creation. He, for his part, did not see that that was relevant. His reason for rejecting the relevance of that piece could be that the stars are a part of the physical universe - whereas Angels are said to reside in "heaven" - (which "heaven" in of this reference is understood to be a non-physical spiritual realm - that's why he pointed that out). I think the existence of Angels in heaven observing a physical creation cannot prove that the bible teaches that physical stars are said to be in existence before the earth is created. Because if the bible does teach that the Earth was there first, that would by no means prevent angels in heaven from observing any such process. I don't know if I have elucidated Mazaje's point correctly, or if I have misapprehended yours. |
| mazaje(m): 12:57am On May 28, 2010 |
viaro: When I say I am not discussing about origins I meant to say, I was not discussing about origin sciences, that I have been clear about but just observable scientific evidence we can use to compare to the genesis creation . . . . It's simple really: if you don't want to discuss either creation or origin, I am willing to let it be. But if you want to keep driving your baseless arguments and showing nothing for your assertions, I am also willing to let you drive along your rhetorics and let it be. That does not mean therefore that I was "lying" - in fact, it is such a laugh to read you allege that and yet produce absolutely NOTHING from science to show what you argue on ORIGINS. You have made the point yourself, you asked a question about origin science and I simply stated that I was not talking about origins, by origins I meant origin science, I was careful to talk about scientific observable evidence and how it compares to the genesis creation . . . It mentions only that "He created the stars also", not that the stars were specifically created after the earth came into existence. This is why I went on to show you other verses and discussed them. I am more interested in you discussing those verses I pointed out rather than exploding all over the place and evading them. Nice try, but the more you keep lying through your teeth, the more ridiculous your equivocations look. One which day of creation did it say that the stars were also created? The age did not "only" state that the he also made the stars, it says after the two great lights were created(sun and the moon), the stars were created also, and it also says there were created on the 4th day of creation, It states very clearly that the plants were created in the earth on the 3rd day of creation before the stars, sun and the moon were created on the 4th day, Keep lying because that is the only thing you seem to know how to do very well. . . .I like the YEC for one thing, they state it as it was written, what they do is that they try to say that it is the science that is wrong, since the bible to them is the word of their God, they believe its words are the ultimate, If you visist the AIG or ICR website, they say that God was the source of the light that was shining on the earth before the sun was created, I have had this same arguments with sincere people like davidylan, noetic and olaadegbu, david and ola both say that since no body was there, they believed that God was the source of the light, and since God created, it is not impossible for him to create the earth before the sun. . . They read it as it is written and do not try to waste their time lying to themselves. . .You my friend are a joke. . . I have not made a different meaning in the CREATION in the Bible - which is why I cited and discussed verses both from Genesis and other verses that point to creation. Even if the verse in Isaiah is your nightmare, Is this a joke or what? What verse in Isaiah points to creation? Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. How is the complete joke written above my nightmare? . . .How do the stars not give off their light?. . . .Since when does the moon cause her light to shine? The moon is a rock that does not produce its light, The moon light we see is simply a reflection of the sunlight on the moons surface, so how is this mythical narrative my night mare, a narrative that talks about the stars giving not giving off their light or the moon not causing its light to shine. . .Which part of this verse talks about or points to creation?. . .The in text subject heading from the NKJV I have here talks about the coming destruction of Babylon. . .How does the coming destruction of Babylon point to creation? . . . My man you are a complete joke. . . what did you say about Genesis 2:4 that shows that the in Genesis 1 is not a literal 24hr reckoning? In your own tutelage, does a generation amount to just 24hours? And yes, Isaiah mentions "contellations" - since you have been harping like a brainless dump about "other stars" being "solar systems like ours", what is all this flaring up and skidding you're boiling yourself all over again for? Please discuss them - your farting all over the place and polluting the air! Which generation is that? The bibles I have here in front of me do not mention any generation. . . . Gen 2: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.(NKJV) Gen 2: 4 This is the [/b]of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens where is the generation written here, ( NIV). . . Gen 2: 4 This is the [b] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.(NASB) Gen 2:4 This is the[b] [/b] of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth (NLT). . Gen2:4These are births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;YNG Which generations are you talking about since it does NOT appear in any of these versions?. . .Does that not tell you that the version you are using got it wrongly since many other versions do not mention the word generations at all but or history?. . . .I have posted 5 other versions that say your version is wrong, no?. . . . .Even if we are to go by the version you posted, How does it help you assertion that the universe was not created in 6 days?. . . . No verse in Genesis says that the stars were created on the 4th day - it only says that He created the stars also, and I have not changed anything precisely as it is written. You are a joke. . .On what day of the biblical day of creation were the stars created? Pls tell me. . . . The bible says you are a pathetic lair. . . Gen 1: 16Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. Gen 1: 17God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, Gen 1: 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. Gen 1: 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Does this not appear in your bible?. . . . . . .Keep on trying to run faster than your shadow and lets see how successful you will be at it. . .You on the other hand are too desperate to read your argument into what is before yours eyes, that is why you cannot show any verse that says that the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth. This is why atheists will jump about anything and yet we have as many different shades of atheism as well, no? You just said that the bible did not say that the stars were created on the fourth day of creation . . .I have shown you the verse where it says that after creating the stars, The bible God them in the firmament to give light to the earth. . . .Oh dude, wake up. I mentioned that Psalm 90:4 shows that time is relative - and here is the verse: "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" (KJV). That was a reference to show that what people have argued into Genesis does not necessarily make it so - not even your own misplaced atheism argued into the Bible. OK if were are to go by that age that says that a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of the bibleGod then 6 days will be like 6000 days and that will mean that the universe was created in 6000 years, no?. . . . That's what you have done - reading your own "SOLELY" repeatedly for the stars and never once showing where it was so written in any verse, no? But when I try to discuss, the best (or worst) you can do is disagree - and I don't give two scoobies besides. I have not tried to change anything, and if in any line I had quoted another thing that was not written, then point them out. Here is what the verse says, "God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth," You can run all you can but you can never run faster than your shadow. . . . . A "day" is NOT ALWAYS a 24hour division of time - I have shown why that is so in Genesis 2:4 which declares "the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" - I don't know how many Young Earth Creationists sincerely tell you that a generation = 24 hours time reckoning! You find one, let me know. You did not show me anything, you showed me a very poorly translated verse that has been made redundant by other better translations, Even the NKJV changed that translation. . . .The YECnist at least do not go about adding meaning into the bible and lying all over their mouths as you have been doing here. . . . You're becoming a hypocrite! If a version does not suit you, you say it is by the way. But if something is pointed out, you begin to skid and dance around, no? It may well be suited to some to use other words such as you cited, but just so we don't risk funny games here, I deliberately left you the word translated generation (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh). Okay, the hypocrisy here is also 'by the way', lol. Its not about a version suiting me, The verse was corrected in the NKJV, no? There are more bible translation without the word generation than there are bible versions with the word generation, what does that tell you, since the NKJV also had to change the generation translation and replaced it with ?. . . .Majority carries the day any where, no?. . . . I'll go with the majority and the majority of the translations do not have the word generations. . . . |
| mazaje(m): 2:02am On May 28, 2010 |
viaro: Can you point to one angle?. . . .I don't have time for your mythical beliefs. Where in the genesis creation does it say that the angles were created together with the universe?. . . .What is this redundant angles drivel to do with anything?. . . .
The heavens according to many translators mean the universe, celestial bodies etc. . .If we are to go by what you are inferring, where is this heaven, that was created along side the earth, since it says that God created the heavens and the earth?. . . . Wait mazaje! You are just one pitiful grumbler! What exactly is your original argument?? I have waited long and hard to see you show that the UNIVERSE was NOT CREATED! Choose any source for your ORIGINS SCIENCE and show me that the Universe was NOT CREATED. Your pitiful grumbling here is okay if that is what you can produce for all your arguments - but after reading every line of your objections, I notice you have cleverly dodged that one request I offered you! WHY DID YOU JUST EXCUSE THAT ONE, mazaje? WHY?!? My original argument is that observations that have been made through the scientific method does not the creation in genesis. . .Where did I say on this thread that the universe was not created?. . . .Keep on chasing your tail. . . . So, this excuse and complaints is all you have for the fact that the Bible recognizes and talks about "constellations"? I'm not even trying at all - without effort I can laugh at your silly jokes! So constellations now mean stars with planets revolving around them eh? . . . .What exactly is a constellation?. . . .And how does it help your ridiculous lies that the writers of the bible have an idea or other stars as solar systems?. . . .You are just trying too hard. . . If one wants to be too technical and pedantic with you, I would say that you're lying and farting all at once. Genesis 1 does not mention a word about the "sun", so what is the verse in Genesis 1 that "specifically" mentioned the SUN? True it doesn't meantion the sun, but a simple reading of the verse clearly shows that it was talking about the sun. . . .The footnote for the English Standard Version says that the sun and the moon were not mentioned by name because they were worshipped by others when the genesis was written. . . . The point is that one could infer that the sun is indirectly inferred in that chapter - and UNLESS YOU GO OUTSIDE Genesis 1, you cannot see that it is actually the sun. That is simply the reason why I went outside Genesis 1 to give you a collective picture of the chronology of Creation. It is for this reason that I mentioned verse 3 that ALREADY mentioned "light" - but no, you will forever ignore that one and pretend that it is not there in the same Genesis 1 you're so eager to force your misgivings into, no? The sun was directly inferred. . . .You don't have to go outside genesis 1 to see anything because genesis one clearly infers to the sun and the moon. . . .You did not go outside genesis to give me any chronology of creation. . .You alluded to a verse in Isiaiah that was talking about the destruction of babylon when the stars and the moon will stop giving off their light, and some verses in Job that says that a thousand years is like a day in the eyes of the bible God. . . . .How exactly did you give a collective picture of the chronology of creation when everything was already given in the book of genesis? The entire 6 days it took Yahweh to create the universe was talked about in detail in genesis, no?. . . |
| mazaje(m): 2:26am On May 28, 2010 |
viaro: No its not, The fact still remains that the bible talks about 6 days, You provided some examples that suggest that a day is like a thousand years to the bible God, if that is so then 6 days mean 6000 years, no? Will I then be wrong to say that the universe was created in 6000 days according to your submissions with regards to the verse that says a day is like a 1000 years?. . . . The YEC will apply a 24 hr interpretation for all mention of a "day" into the Genesis for creation - but when it comes to Genesis 2:4 that mentions the "generations" in the "day" when the heavens and the earth were created, they are either so silent, or excuse the meaning of a "generation" and sweep it under s/history. They are not sweeping it but stating what is written in their bibles, no? s is what is written in their bible and not generations, no?. . .Unless if you mean to tells me that all the people that translated the other versions of the bible don't know what they were doing. . . NONE of them will apply the same 24hrs-day for "generation"; and that is why people do not like to read beyond Genesis when dealing with all aspects of the creation. . . even when Job 38 shows that the angels witnessed the creation of the earth, even though we know that they (angels) were also created and yet Genesis says not a word about the creation of the angels! What I'm trying to point out is this: one should look at the whole picture to get an understanding of creation - YECs and others may not like to do so, and that is why they often run into problems. Which generations are you talking about that does not appear in their own bibles?. . . .They read s or history, no?. . . .When does history or equates to generations?. . . . |
| viaro: 8:37am On May 28, 2010 |
Deep Sight: I think this is where a lot of people get it mixed up. If you go back to what I said in reference to the angels, I noted again and again that they were also created; and as such, were already in existence in the created Universe (even though the heavens where they reside are also part of God's creation). . . and as such, the Bible clearly indicates that these created angels who reside in the part of God's created Universe also witnessed the creation of the EARTH. This is why I often quoted Job 38:4-7, here are the relevant verses I was referring to: [list]4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?[/list] When God laid the foundations of the EARTH, the angels were there and witnessed this event - but MAN was not yet created at that time. If the angels were already created so as to have witnessed the creation of the EARTH, where could they have been? If we say "heaven", that is correct, but then I ask: were the "HEAVENS" not also CREATED by God? The point is this: we all should understand that the Universe is MUCH MORE OLDER than the Earth - the angels were there in the created Universe and in time witnessed the formation of the EARTH and other planetary bodies. That is the point I wanted to get across to mazaje. Therefore, if the angels were there and witnessed the creation of the Earth, where were the stars and the "constellations" already referred to? Some assume they were in a thick/solid dome just above the ground - but is that what Genesis means by "the firmament of HEAVEN"? Of course not! Other verses outside Genesis make it so clear that the CONSTELLATIONS are not on the earth just above the ground - and that is the problem with people who read their own misgivings into the Genesis . What I am calling for is a collective picture and not biases that simply refuse to be reasonable. In any case, where is the ORIGINS SCIENCE that mazaje presents for his assertion that God did NOT CREATE the UNIVERSE? That is what he has categorically danced away from and making excuses now that he was not talking about "origins". I have asked him to explain the difference between "origins" and "creation" - and that wait is now eons old. Deep Sight: No, you did not elucidate mazaje's pioint - more so because you missed out the very fact that I have tried to highlight - that the Bible does not conclude that the Universe and the Earth are of the same age - that was the point in Job 38:4-7. The heavens and the earth did not happen all at once; and the earth came later into the picture, even though Genesis 1:1 announces them in a summary statement as God's creation "in the beginning". This is why I have pointed out the fact that Genesis 2:4 speaks of the epoch of the event as "the generations" of the heavens and the earth when they were created - and we all know that a generation is not the same as a 24 hour day! |
| mazaje(m): 9:03am On May 28, 2010 |
viaro: In which part of the universe do the angels reside?. . .The bible says that the angels reside in heaven, a spiritual realm that has nothing to do with the universe since the comprises of everything perceived to exist physically ie the entirety of space and time, and all forms of matter and energy. When God laid the foundations of the EARTH, the angels were there and witnessed this event - but MAN was not yet created at that time. If the angels were already created so as to have witnessed the creation of the EARTH, where could they have been? If we say "heaven", that is correct, but then I ask: were the "HEAVENS" not also CREATED by God? What has this drivel you have written got to do with the fact that genesis says that the stars were created on the fourth day of creation after the earth was already in existence?. . . . The point is this: we all should understand that the Universe is MUCH MORE OLDER than the Earth - the angels were there in the created Universe and in time witnessed the formation of the EARTH and other planetary bodies. That is the point I wanted to get across to mazaje. Where does the bible say that the universe is much older than the earth? Which age or verse does it say so?. . . . Therefore, if the angels were there and witnessed the creation of the Earth, where were the stars and the "constellations" already referred to? Where does it say that the angels witnessed the creatation of the earth after the constellations were in existence? Some assume they were in a thick/solid dome just above the ground - but is that what Genesis means by "the firmament of HEAVEN"? Of course not! Other verses outside Genesis make it so clear that the CONSTELLATIONS are not on the earth just above the ground - and that is the problem with people who read their own misgivings into the Genesis . What I am calling for is a collective picture and not biases that simply refuse to be reasonable. Genesis talks about the firmanment as a solid dome, if other verses talk about the firmament as something else and not a solid dome then, that is all part of the man contradictions that abound in the bible, the bible is known to contradict itself in so many places, no?. . . .By the way it just talks about constellation and does not say if they were above or below the earth. . . . In any case, where is the ORIGINS SCIENCE that mazaje presents for his assertion that God did NOT CREATE the UNIVERSE? That is what he has categorically danced away from and making excuses now that he was not talking about "origins". I have asked him to explain the difference between "origins" and "creation" - and that wait is now eons old. Origin science says that God did NOT create the universem Which part of the BB says that God created the universe, pls bring it on lets see. . . . No, you did not elucidate mazaje's pioint - more so because you missed out the very fact that I have tried to highlight - that the Bible does not conclude that the Universe and the Earth are of the same age - that was the point in Job 38:4-7. Sure according to the bible the earth was created before other parts of the universe like the sun and the stars. . . . The heavens and the earth did not happen all at once; and the earth came later into the picture, Which heavens are you talking about? The spiritual realm or what?. . .If by heavens you are referring to the universe then the bible clearly states that the earth came before the stars, moon and the sun . . . . . even though Genesis 1:1 announces them in a summary statement as God's creation "in the beginning". This is why I have pointed out the fact that Genesis 2:4 speaks of the epoch of the event as "the generations" of the heavens and the earth when they were created - and we all know that a generation is not the same as a 24 hour day! it does NOT speak about generations but history or . . . . .Gen 2: 4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.(NKJV) Gen 2: 4 This is the of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens( NIV). . where is the generation written here, . |
| DeepSight(m): 9:26am On May 28, 2010 |
viaro: Hi Viaro, Ofcourse the universe predates the Earth, but are you sure it is apt to say that "the angels were there in the created Universe?" Do angels reside in the physical universe. . .might they be camping on Mars, for example? The point is: the heavens they dwell in is said to be a transcendental spiritual realm and not any part of the "created universe." Now if that is the case, then they could observe anything in the physical universe - earth or stars - without necessarily implying that either came before the other. @ Mazaje - I verily state to you that if you are able to define EXACTLY what a singularity is, and describe its full nature and full properties, (you cannot, and no scientist or mortal can) - you will be perilously close to staring God in the face. |
| viaro: 10:41am On May 28, 2010 |
|
Sorry for the delay, I was caught up with other things. Deep Sight: Please DeepSight, I don't think the distractions are necessary. We know that the Bible does not infer any such suggestions about angels dwelling or residing on mars - in as much as we know that mars is a planet, and the Bible actually recognizes PLANETS. However, if we want to talk about the Universe as a whole, basing my discussion on the references I gave, it should be clear that the angels were observing the creation of the earth after the Universe had been created. Once we take our eyes off the verses cited for this (which I notice obody is discussing anyways), then we run into all sorts - and that is what I don't want to get into. |
| viaro: 10:42am On May 28, 2010 |
|
Now mazaje, mazaje: That is absolutely bunk! You've been trying to argue "science" into the ORIGINS of the Universe - and that was why I obliged you a discussion to see where you derived your "sciences" from to argue your assertions about the Universe not having been created! Any "science" would do - whether cosmology, origins science, astronomy, or theoretical physics (including quantum theory) - ANY SCIENCE would do, as long as it would have shown any substance for your assertion that God did NOT CREATE the Universe!I even obliged you to pick any ORIGINS SCIENCE of your choice (Google if you please) and let me know which one of them has ever researched "God" and what their conclusions could have been as to assert that God did NOT CREATE the Universe. Rather, you quibbled and quibbled and never even attempted showing any difference between what you are arguing and ORIGINS SCIENCE or ORIGINS or CREATION! This is what you said earlier: [list] mazaje:[/list] . . . and in post #19 I argued to the contrary that: [list] viaro: The Universe DID NOT create itself - no science I am aware of would argue for a self-created Universe. I cannot provide any so-called "evidence" that shows or points to a Universe that created itself. Therefore, if your argument is to the contrary view that the Universe created itself, you have all the freedom in the cosmos to show me your evidence for that![/list] Your argument that you're not discussing "origins" or "origins science" etc., is pure bull! It would mean all that you've been sweating to do here is a cheap run under which you can hide, because you know that you have absolutely NOTHING to show from any science that the Universe created itself; nor any science to show ORIGINS research discussing and concluding anything about "God"; nor any science where all origins research terminate at a conclusion that the Universe was NOT CREATED. Where is your evidence for a Universe that self-created itself? NONE. Where is your evidence for ORIGINS SCIENCE? None. You're not discussing "origins". . . and how is that different from the origins and creation and origins science we have been talking about? If you are neither here nor there, what is the use trying to make any sense from what you're arguing? mazaje: And does the so-called "scientific" evidence conclude that the Universe was not created? Even where I have tried to be amicable on that point as in post #29 and allow for some deference (*not 'difference'), the basic point from your argument was what? If you're saying that God did not create the Universe, I wanted scientific evidence that discusses 'God' and showing that the Universe was not created. That is because as an atheist who hides behind "science", you're committed to pure materialism/naturalism - and that is why I wanted you to use that same "science" from whereever you may and show me that the Universe was not created. We may differ in details - but so far, none of what you argue has given anyone reason to conclude that the Universe was not created. I went that far to point you in the direction of current researches in that field, for which I have often mentioned "origins science". If perhaps you have any other "science" that points to origins and therefore show that the Universe was not created, I was also ready to oblige you a discussion. Where is your 'science' for origins or the creation of the Universe? mazaje: Please tell me: why did Genesis 1:3 mention LIGHT before the latter verses 14-16 that mention other lights? I have not read a single line from you dealing with verse 3, even though I have mentioned it a couple of times. Do you care to do so now? mazaje: Both you and those who are pandering to are a bigger joke. Where is it found "as it is written" that God was the source of the light that was shining on earth before the sun was created? What verse? You just accept their word and conclude that is precisely "as it is written" so that you can applud your cheap arguments. No wonder. But I have a question for you and your cheats. Genesis 1:3 says "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." The bolded words ('let there be') is an act of creation - it was created light; so all the trash about they said this and that would just simply come down as an excuse. I've asked some of these YECs what they mean by "God is the source of the light in Genesis 1:3". . and some of them say that HE was that light! Can you imagine the idiocy of these guys? I remarked that if God was that light in verse 3, then was He creating Himself AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth?!? You mazaje, are one piece of a joke! You like them YECs not because theyr are showing you what is written - but because they are cheaper shots for you to take a swing at! I wonder why you never for once asked them to show you what verse 3 was saying and whether God was creating Himself in that verse before coming down to verses 14-16 to talk about other lights! No, that explanation of the YECs on the preceding LIGHT in verse 3 is a joke beyond reason. Next opportunity you have, please ask them sensible questions rather than assume theyr are telling you stuff "as it is written". |
| viaro: 10:47am On May 28, 2010 |
mazaje: Please stop breaking your neck on Isaiah 13:10. This is what I said when I quoted that verse for you in post #26: [list][li]For one, Isaiah 13:10 indeed mentions "the constellations" of the heavens besides having mentioned the stars, but this 'constellations' is not specifically mentioned in Genesis.[/li][/list] [list][li]I will mention Isaiah 13:10 once again - "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof" - this should help you understand that the Bible recognizes what you're on about the "other stars" being "solar systems like ours".[/li][/list] If you can't understand the meaning of "mention" and "recognize" then you're beyond being helped indeed! The "stars of heaven" are part of God's creation, "the constellations" are also part of God's creation - this is what the Bible recognizes if you're perturbed about "OTHER STARS" being solar systems like ours! That it appears in Isaiah 13:10 in a age talking about judgement on sinners (cf. verse 9 - 'he shall destroy the sinners') does not mean therefore that the stars and the constellations are not part of His creation! In other ages dealing with judgement on sin and sinners, similar language is used about the sun, the moon, the stars and the bright lights of heaven being darkened (Ezekiel 32:7- , so what? That the sun and moon shall be darkened does not mean that they were not part of God's creation. In the same way, when Isaiah 13:10 says that the stars and the contellations shall not give their lights, it does not mean therefore that we could not point out that they are part of God's creation as well - and the mentioning of the "constellations" in that verse should have helped you see that the Bible recognizes the "other stars" like our solar system which you were noising earlier! Your petty excuses are beginning to bore me! Bottomline: you were on about "other stars" being solar systems like ours, no? I cited those references to show you that the mentioning of the stars and the constellations shows that the Bible recognizes those "other stars" you were on about! When again you check the Ezekiel 32:7-8 just cited above, you find indeed that these "others" you were on about are also recognized in the Bible - the sun, the moon, the stars, and the 'All the bright lights of heaven' (or as in NIV - 'all the shining lights in the heavens') - the Bible also recognizes that there are planets as part of God's creation (2 Kings 23:5). So how is my pointing out these things to you churn you on the inside to allege that I was lying through your teeth? mazaje: Please come off your high horse. Why are you being such a desperate hypocrite? You and I are familiar with the King James Version (KJV), and I guess you quite might've quoted from the KJV as well, no? Even at that, all you needed to have done was take a look into the KJV and see indeed that Genesis 2:4 states precisely: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". Other translations may use the words history/; but we know that is merely for convenience not to face up to the fact that "generations" does not refer to a 24hr reckoning of time - at the very least, the word "generations" would perhaps be more akin to the Hebrew (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh). You told me in post #30 that you have the E[/b]nglish [b]S[/b]tandard [b]V[/b]ersion ([b]ESV) - and this is what it says: [list][li]These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens[/li][/list] . . . why did you skip that one? Other versions/translations in English that use "generations" include (but not limited to) - [list][li]'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.' - [ASV - American Standard Version][/li][/list] [list][li]'These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.' - [JPS - Jewish Publication Society Bible][/li][/list] [list][li]'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens.' - [LITV - Literal Trans. of the Holy Bible][/li][/list] [list][li]'These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.' - [RV - Revised Version][/li][/list] Now, that's six other translations using the same word "generations" in that Genesis 2:4 verse - either you just skipped them for your convenience and therefore inferred that I was quoting only one "wrong" translation, or you just presumed I wouldn't notice the difference. After blowing hot and cold, I don't know what you've managed to discuss on that word and what I pointed out. mazaje: The Bible does not say so - I only notice you're trying to force your own atheism into the Bible to help you prevaricate on the subject of Creation and Origins. mazaje: I have referred to and discussed them earlier. However, I also pointed out several times that before verse 14 to 16, Genesis 1:3 mentioned LIGHT. What did you say on that? Oh, I didn't forget - you excused it on your own story-telling about your pallying with YECs who yada-yada on that verse! I salute with three cheers! mazaje: That's true - I noted that the Bible does not conclude that the earth was created before the stars, and to show you why I said so, I went to other verses to point out that the Universe was much earlier than the earth, no? mazaje: Ahem, mazaje. . . you argued repeatedly that the stars were set in the firmament SOLELY to give light upon the earth; and I pointed out to you that you were skipping verse 14 which shows other purposes besides giving light on earth - I hope you haven't forgotten? mazaje: That would be giving it the traditional interpretation of the YECs - and you of all people know that I'm not a YEC. I have tried to show you why that would be problematic even for the YECs, and also noted that the Bible does not give us the precise age of the Universe. The only difference is that even though in cosmology the Bible indicates that time is relative and not static, it does not tell us that we ought therefore to conclude that the entire creation is only 6,000 years old. For this reason, I pointed out some other ages and asked questions around other creations of God in the Universe which we did not read in the Genesis - these are clearly explicated in other verses of the Bible, and that was what I wanted folks to grapple with. The idea of a literal 24hr reckoning of 6 days in Genesis does not square with what other Bible verses are saying, it does not square with what is meant by "generations" (תּלדה/תּולדה - tôledâh) in Genesis 2:4; and certainly does not square with the chronology of created beings which are part of God's creation in other verses of the Bible. I believe there is a coherence in all these; however, many people just stand at Genesis 1 and never seek to compare with other verses on what is being said about God's creation. When I mention the "contellations" and "planets" which are recognized in other verses outside Genesis (that is, other books of the Bible, not outside the Bible), you can't even imagine my surprise at Christians who get upset with me for finding those things outside Genesis 1!! I tried to ask them what could possibly be the problem with recognizing that the Bible acknowledges the existence of PLANETS?!? I should spare you their reactions. In all these things, the best you can do is disagree with me in the way I comapre other verses with the Genesis 1 - not that I'm trying to fault them; but rather because I see a coherence in them that brings out the fact that the Universe was indeed CREATED! And yes, not created by a "thing", but by God the Creator of all things. To this end, if you have any science or ORIGINS research to show that the Universe was not created, that would be useful to consider for your argument. The basic point is not whether you are agreeing with me half-way through - but as a Christian theist, I believe in CREATION; and I suppose that at the heart of your atheism, we find a materialist notion that asserts the Universe was not created! This is the basic point - and often is the case that many atheists will say that their reason for a "not-created" Universe is "science" - and if that's what you are on about, I want to see that "science". Your excuses that you were not arguing "origins" or "origins science" or "creation" is all bull and makes your posts meaningless. If you do want to discuss origins or creation (which I suppose is what this thread is about), then I'm willing to engage you.
|
| viaro: 11:01am On May 28, 2010 |
mazaje: Okay, please show me any origins science research paper that has said anything about 'GOD'. That has been at the heart of your argument, so please don't come back like a hypocrite claiming you "don't know". It were better you just shut up and stop pretending you know anything about 'ORIGINS SCIENCE'. If you've any statement in a research paper that has concluded in "origins science" that God did not create the Universe, please show me. (it is almost confirming to me that you don't know anything about what is meant by "origins science" - that does not mean anyone should blame you for it; but it is quite naive and indeed brainless for you mazaje to make statements that you can't provide anything for. I'm asking for research from the field of "Origins Science" asserting that God did not create the Universe). |
| mazaje(m): 12:30pm On May 28, 2010 |
viaro: It is your assertions that is bull since NO origin sciences says that any God created the universe, Which of the origin sciences says that any God created the universe?. . . .I say I even obliged you to pick any ORIGINS SCIENCE of your choice (Google if you please) and let me know which one of them has ever researched "God" and what their conclusions could have been as to assert that God did NOT CREATE the Universe. Rather, you quibbled and quibbled and never even attempted showing any difference between what you are arguing and ORIGINS SCIENCE or ORIGINS or CREATION! The origins of the universe from the BB model which has observable evidences is there for all to compare with the creation s available in your bible, no? Your argument that you're not discussing "origins" or "origins science" etc., is pure bull! It would mean all that you've been sweating to do here is a cheap run under which you can hide, because you know that you have absolutely NOTHING to show from any science that the Universe created itself; nor any science to show ORIGINS research discussing and concluding anything about "God"; nor any science where all origins research terminate at a conclusion that the Universe was NOT CREATED. Where did I say here on this thread that the universe created itself, pl show me. . . .Keep on chasing shadows. . . Where is your evidence for a Universe that self-created itself? NONE. Where is your evidence for ORIGINS SCIENCE? None. You're not discussing "origins". . . and how is that different from the origins and creation and origins science we have been talking about? If you are neither here nor there, what is the use trying to make any sense from what you're arguing? Where in this thread did I say that the universe self created itself?. . . .Where did I say that origin sciences says that the universe created it self? keep on running around chasing your tail and arguing with yourself. . .Just show me where I said in this thread that the universe created it self. . .show me on this thread. . . A[b]nd does the so-called "scientific" evidence conclude that the Universe was not created[/b]? Even where I have tried to be amicable on that point as in post #29 and allow for some deference (*not 'difference'), the basic point from your argument was what? If you're saying that God did not create the Universe, I wanted scientific evidence that discusses 'God' and showing that the Universe was not created. That is because as an atheist who hides behind "science", you're committed to pure materialism/naturalism - and that is why I wanted you to use that same "science" from whereever you may and show me that the Universe was not created.Where did I say any of such? Which science says that the universe was created by a God?. . . .Which sciences says that the universe did not have a beginning? And where did I say that any sciences say that the universe was not created? It seems you just enjoy arguing with yourself, no?. . . We may differ in details - but so far, none of what you argue has given anyone reason to conclude that the Universe was not created. I went that far to point you in the direction of current researches in that field, for which I have often mentioned "origins science". If perhaps you have any other "science" that points to origins and therefore show that the Universe was not created, I was also ready to oblige you a discussion. Where is your 'science' for origins or the creation of the Universe? Where did I say on this thread that the universe was created or not created, Show me? Please tell me: why did Genesis 1:3 mention LIGHT before the latter verses 14-16 that mention other lights? I have not read a single line from you dealing with verse 3, even though I have mentioned it a couple of times. Do you care to do so now? And where In genesis 1:3 does it say that the light are the stars? Pls show where it says that the light it was talking about refer to the stars, I asked you a simple question but as usual you ran way form it, In which day of created did it say that God also created the stars after creating the two great lights?. . . . .It specifically said that light was created on the first day of creation and also specifically stated that the stars were created on the fourth day of creation, no?. . . .Keep on lying with your teeth. . . . Both you and those who are pandering to are a bigger joke. Where is it found "as it is written" that God was the source of the light that was shining on earth before the sun was created? What verse? You just accept their word and conclude that is precisely "as it is written" so that you can applud your cheap arguments. No wonder. You are a joke, Where did I say that they claim that their explanations was written any where in the bible, all I said was that they claim or offer explanations that the bibleGod was the source of the light that was talked about that was created in the beginning. So light means stars eh, but the bible was clear and specifically stated that the stars were created on the 4th day, no?. . . .On which day of creation were the stars mentioned to have been created? But I have a question for you and your cheats. Genesis 1:3 says "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." The bolded words ('let there be') is an act of creation - it was created light; so all the trash about they said this and that would just simply come down as an excuse. I've asked some of these YECs what they mean by "God is the source of the light in Genesis 1:3". . and some of them say that HE was that light! Can you imagine the idiocy of these guys? I remarked that if God was that light in verse 3, then was He creating Himself AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth?!? So what was this created light you are talking about? It just says light and it ends there, where in the text does it say that the light means anything beside just light?. . . .Your evidence to show that the light talked about is something else beside just light is what?. . . . You mazaje, are one piece of a joke! You like them YECs not because theyr are showing you what is written - but because they are cheaper shots for you to take a swing at! I wonder why you never for once asked them to show you what verse 3 was saying and whether God was creating Himself in that verse before coming down to verses 14-16 to talk about other lights! I like them because they, say it as it reads, not like you that keep denying all that is written. . . .The last time I checked you were also denying that the bible says that Noah's flood wasn't a global flood, no? . . .keep on chasing your tail. . . .No, that explanation of the YECs on the preceding LIGHT in verse 3 is a joke beyond reason. Next opportunity you have, please ask them sensible questions rather than assume theyr are telling you stuff "as it is written". And your explanations that says the light is anything else other than just light is what?. . . .You are a joke. . . . . |
| Re: Creating From Nothing by Nobody: 12:38pm On May 28, 2010 |
|
@viaro and mazaje U both are arguing from different orientation,different intellectual stance, different understanding of science and different realms of the perception of English language. With each of u holding firm to relative beliefs on the subject u guys cant reach a good conclusion. with this mazaje on Today at 09:03:43 AM] To make this discuss interesting, mazaje consider the bolded and take up the bolded from viaro's qoute cheers |
| mazaje(m): 12:49pm On May 28, 2010 |
viaro: What has the creation s in genesis one got to do with a verse in Isaiah that talks about the stars not giving their light and the moon not giving its light? When will the stars stop to give their light and since when does the moon produce its light?. . . . , You keep jumping from one mythical narrative to another, So what if the constellations was not mentioned in genesis? The heavens were mentioned in genesis and that also, includes the constellations ,no?[list][li]I will mention Isaiah 13:10 once again - "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof" - this should help you understand that the Bible recognizes what you're on about the "other stars" being "solar systems like ours".[/li][/list] Same tired old lies again, since when does constellations mean planets?. . . .Does constellation mean solar systems? If you can't understand the meaning of "mention" and "recognize" then you're beyond being helped indeed! The "stars of heaven" are part of God's creation, "the constellations" are also part of God's creation - this is what the Bible recognizes if you're perturbed about "OTHER STARS" being solar systems like ours! That it appears in Isaiah 13:10 in a age talking about judgement on sinners (cf. verse 9 - 'he shall destroy the sinners') does not mean therefore that the stars and the constellations are not part of His creation! Stars are part of which creations, Your evidence to show that the stars were created by the bible God is what?. . .Did he appear to you and told you that he created the stars, do you have any video recording of him creating the stars, does any of the stars have his name written on them? you based your assumption on the writings of tribal men that say that the moon produces its light, and that their God will make the stars to stop giving their light over babylon?. . . . . .You are a joke. . . .In other ages dealing with judgement on sin and sinners, similar language is used about the sun, the moon, the stars and the bright lights of heaven being darkened (Ezekiel 32:7- When exactly will the sun and the moon be darkened?. . . What drivel are you talking about here? In the same way, when Isaiah 13:10 says that the stars and the contellations shall not give their lights, it does not mean therefore that we could not point out that they are part of God's creation as well - and the mentioning of the "constellations" in that verse should have helped you see that the Bible recognizes the "other stars" like our solar system which you were noising earlier! Your petty excuses are beginning to bore me! When does constellation mean other stars are solar systems? Now you are lying through your eyes as I can see. . . . Bottomline: you were on about "other stars" being solar systems like ours, no? I cited those references to show you that the mentioning of the stars and the constellations shows that the Bible recognizes those "other stars" you were on about! When again you check the Ezekiel 32:7-8 just cited above, you find indeed that these "others" you were on about are also recognized in the Bible - the sun, the moon, the stars, and the 'All the bright lights of heaven' (or as in NIV - 'all the shining lights in the heavens') Sure the bible talks about stars, Any body that goes out in the night will see the stars, no?. . . . - the Bible also recognizes that there are planets as part of God's creation (2 Kings 23:5). So how is my pointing out these things to you churn you on the inside to allege that I was lying through your teeth? Where does the bible mention the word planets, it talks about stars, lights, when in the creation does it say that the planets were created?. . . .How many planets does the bible talk about?. . . .On which day of creation were the planets of the solar system created according to the bible, I want you to show me specifically where the bible talks about the creation of planets. . . . |
| mazaje(m): 1:14pm On May 28, 2010 |
I have referred to and discussed them earlier. However, I also pointed out several times that before verse 14 to 16, Genesis 1:3 mentioned LIGHT. What did you say on that? Oh, I didn't forget - you excused it on your own story-telling about your pallying with YECs who yada-yada on that verse! I salute with three cheers! And what evidence do you have to show that the light is nothing other than just light? Where does it say that the light is something else other than just light? That's true - I noted that the Bible does not conclude that the earth was created before the stars, and to show you why I said so, I went to other verses to point out that the Universe was much earlier than the earth, no? Where in the bible does it say that the universe is older than the earth? All you did was show a verse that talks about angels witnessing the creation of the earth, since when did the angles become part of the universe? Where in the universe do the angles reside? By universe I mean the universe that comprises everything perceived to exist physically, the entirety of space and time, and all forms of matter and energy. The bible says that the stars, were created after the earth. . . . Ahem, mazaje. . . you argued repeatedly that the stars were set in the firmament SOLELY to give light upon the earth; and I pointed out to you that you were skipping verse 14 which shows other purposes besides giving light on earth - I hope you haven't forgotten? Where the stars created solely help the earth divide day and night and to determine years, days and seasons? I believe there is a coherence in all these; however, many people just stand at Genesis 1 and never seek to compare with other verses on what is being said about God's creation. When I mention the "contellations" and "planets" which are recognized in other verses outside Genesis (that is, other books of the Bible, not outside the Bible), you can't even imagine my surprise at Christians who get upset with me for finding those things outside Genesis 1!! There you have it, other christians do not share your hypothesis because that is not what those ages are talking about at all, You for example takes a verse in Isaiah that talks about the destruction of babylon to mean that it was talking about creation. . . How will your fellow christians not get upset with your for clearly twisting what was written? . . .You are a joke. . . .I tried to ask them what could possibly be the problem with recognizing that the Bible acknowledges the existence of PLANETS?!? I should spare you their reactions. The only things is that the bible does not state any where that it acknowledges the existence of any planets, very soon, I know you will be here telling us that the bible recognizes the existence of black holes, cosmic back ground radiation and cosmic inflation etc. . .The bible does NOT talk about any planet, if you have any where where it talks about planets then just point to it, Since when does constellation mean planets? In all these things, the best you can do is disagree with me in the way I comapre other verses with the Genesis 1 - not that I'm trying to fault them; but rather because I see a coherence in them that brings out the fact that the Universe was indeed CREATED! And yes, not created by a "thing", but by God the Creator of all things. How come its only you that is "seeing" the coherence, How come a lot of christians are not seeing this coherence? compare your hypothesis to that of noetic for example in his topic why genesis is better than science and see how your hypothesis matches with his. . .Your evidence that your particular version of God created the universe and not some other God or some other thing is what? I want to see the verifiable and objective evidence not some baseless assumptions. . . .I really wonder why it is only you that is seeing things that others aren't. . .Keep on deluding yourself. . . To this end, if you have any science or ORIGINS research to show that the Universe was not created, that would be useful to consider for your argument. The basic point is not whether you are agreeing with me half-way through - but as a Christian theist, I believe in CREATION; and I suppose that at the heart of your atheism, we find a materialist notion that asserts the Universe was not created! This is the basic point - and often is the case that many atheists will say that their reason for a "not-created" Universe is "science" - and if that's what you are on about, I want to see that "science". Your excuses that you were not arguing "origins" or "origins science" or "creation" is all bull and makes your posts meaningless. If you do want to discuss origins or creation (which I suppose is what this thread is about), then I'm willing to engage you. Where did I assert on this thread the universe did not have a beginning? Where does any atheist say that science says that the universe did not have a beginning?. . . |
| viaro: 1:52pm On May 28, 2010 |
|
@mazaje, Please stop going round in circles. I have tried to be as amicable as can be and asked you to show me any science for your assertion that - mazaje: Please let's cut to the chase: show me anything from ORIGINS SCIENCE that says what you asserted above. That is all I'm intersted in at this point. If you can, let's talk. If you cannot, we can leave it at that. Asserting things on behalf of "science" and yet showing nothing anywhere as such is what I notice you champion these days. If not, please show me.
|
| viaro: 2:30pm On May 28, 2010 |
toba: I don't think mazaje is interested in discussing in an interesting manner. If it is not jumping here and there and making false statements and dragging "science" into it, then he's turning round and saying it was all part of his "rhetorics". If you laugh it off, then again he turns round and cries that he is VERY serious! It is interesting to see how some of these loud mouthed atheists just assert things under "science" and end up showing that they do not have a clue what "science" they are talking about. I was waiting for mazaje to surprise me all along for the "science" - any type of "science" - that says what he said such a "science" has said! WHY has that taken so very long? When I hinted that most atheists argue and assert that the Universe has been in existence for all eternity, mazaje was worried and quibbled and danced all around between the implications of that hint. It is obvious that not all atheists everywhere at every time hold/held the view that the Universe was eternal or that it created itself; but in very fact, many atheist have held that view and celebrated it under the excuse of a "science" that only they can talk about but has never shown itself to stand anywhere! With a little help, perhaps, mazaje knows this already, but decided to dance around when challenged on that event, a few examples to the point: (1) Here's one of such assertions that is just asserted out of wind with no science anywhere to show for it: 'Bill' from hygrography blog: I am not saying that the above is precisely mazaje's claim or statement; but I am drawning on these things to make him take a position because they often to our notice that such is the ideology behind the atheist's assertion that the Universe has always existed. When such people are challenged, then begin to quibble and then turn round and forver mention "science" this and "science" that, and yet will never at any place show such a "science" that has researched 'God' to have concluded that the Universe was not created by God. Anyone who wishes might just go to that blog and read the whole page - for all the arguments of this materialist ideology, there is NO SCIENCE anywhere to show the basis of their assertion of a self-created or eternal Universe. However, even in recent times, some have tried to cheat along the lines in their attempts to rise to the challenge of providing the said "science" that says God did not create the Universe. An example is one Terrence A. Lynch who posits "The Infinite and Eternal Nature of the Universe as a Sinusoidal Flux in the Space-Time Continuum". In his piece, he argues: Terrence Lynch: The existence of God as the creator of the universe is negated by the fact that the space-time continuum is infinite. Having no beginning nor end, the universe continues into infinity, our present having arisen from an infinite past which leads into an infinite future. Thus there never was a creation and it is therefore false for God to be envisioned as creator of the universe. Just so we don't risk misunderstanding what Terrence meant by an eternal universe, he goes on to explain that - Terrence Lynch: Herein is proposed the theory of an infinite or eternal universe (infinite in of time and duration of existence; hence, the eternal universe). The basic principles which prescribe an eternal universe are set forth and the models which and enable such an eternal universe are explained. Anyone who reads such a proposition might at first sight assume that Terrence was on to something brilliant. But the so-called "science" he propounds is a cheat all the way - because he takes far too much leaps and gaps in his proposed theory and explains nothing about the nature of existence and causes. For those who just want to cut to the chase, perhaps we need to ask Terrence how he arrived at any calculations of "inifinity" where he just jumps into huge conclusions with nothing in his models to show the workable calculations for his proposition. However, for those who have tried to consider the same question of ORIGINS in science (I'm not talking about cheap shots from brazen atheistic loud mouths who show nothing), I am still waiting to see where any such sciences have established this run-away lie of an eternal Universe. Leaving "creation" for a while, what would theoretic physicists conclusde from their years of research? I give you an example of Stephen Hawkings: (Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking speaks at an international gathering of scientists on the origins of the universe at Beijing's Great Hall of the People in China Monday, June 19, 2006. Hawking is in Beijing to attend the 'Strings 2006' conference on the riddle of string theory which, if solved, could help unlock the mysteries of black holes and the creation of the universe. Photo: AP) I'm not a scientist nor a cosmologist. But when I read atheists arguing for an eternal Universe that had no beginning in its existence, I become very interested indeed to see what theorems they have propounded to draw such conclusions. Atheists may argue that the Universe was not created; but SCIENCE does not come to that conclusion at all anywhere. The above is by no means all there is to the subject - but where someone is saying that "origins science says" thus and thus, it would help greatly if such people lay aside their own atheism and show us where any research in ORIGINS SCIENCE has ever SAID what they want to force into "science". To keep making such assertions and showing nothing is quite mischievous - and we can leave it at that. |
| Romeo4real(m): 4:38pm On May 28, 2010 |
I don't think mazaje is interested in discussing in an interesting mannerI am surprised you have just come to this conclusion. This particular issue has been trashed out so many times with Mazaje. He still clings to his "observable evidence" mantra, singing it like a scratched broken record. He disagrees, and argues vehemently with the Creationists, sometimes eloquently, mostly erratically - but he is YET to put forward an alternative theory. The scientists and cosmologists he is quick to refer to say they do not know, and they are not sure. Yet he swears by them. He acknowledges the "observable evidence" is not dependable, yet he swears by it. I have comprehensively deconstructed all of Mazajes assertions and arguments elsewhere on this forum. I have proven to him that the science he clings to is unreliable and inconclusive. I have shown him the most eminent scientist of our time, in the fields of Relativity, Astrophysics and Quantum Physics do not agree with his views. I have done these things, and yet he still spews out the same garbled views. @Mazaje - I salute and acknowledge your right to disagree, but that is now simply not good enough. You MUST put forward a conclusive alternative theory. So far the actual science is far from conclusive, and you know that. So, I am waiting. |
| Re: Creating From Nothing by Nobody: 5:26pm On May 28, 2010 |
Romeo4real:No man wants to give up easy especially when the subject is trying to say something about is contrary to his beliefs. He must prove his point logically or illogically,reasonable or unreasonably Romeo4real: Hes trying to reconstruct what u have already deconstructed. Till date science doesnt have answers to many things, yet the bible does especially on morals. Romeo4real:But before then we can assume that the same intelligent designer that designed man and the universe, that made both complex to duplicate is [size=25pt]GOD[/size] |
Is It True Our Salvation Is Really A Free Gift? No Strings?
(Go Up)
|
Sections: How To . 351 Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or s on Nairaland. |