I've heard this arguement being made by cristians in some of these endless debates about creation that scientists can't create out of nothing when they do their genetic manipulation voodoos. And i thought to myself, "well, the bible god cannot, either".

According to genesis, the creation of adam and eve did not come out of nothing. Adam was formed out of the EARTH (a big SOMETHING), and Eve was formed out of Adam's RIB (another SOMETHING).

In a nutshell, not even God(the jewish version, anyway) can create something out of nothing. The implication of that being that the bible god was an ancient genetic engineer just like the ones we have today.

I just thought that i should let that one out of the bag.

And who created the "earth" from which Adam was formed?

Jenwitemi:

I've heard this arguement being made by cristians in some of these endless debates about creation that scientists can't create out of nothing when they do their genetic manipulation voodoos. And i thought to myself, "well, the bible god cannot, either".

It's nice to think to yourself; but your logic is flawed. Think carefully about the following -

(a) Creation out of nothing is what is peculiarly known as 'creatio ex nihilo'.

(b) Creation out of nothing is different from 'creation out of something' - the latter is commonly known as 'creatio ex materia', and that is the case applied to Adam having been created from the dust of the earth.

(c) Both ^^ creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia are found in the Bible.

(d) However, the scientists who worked on such cases as the Craig Venter synthetic life could not be said to have done the same thing as (a) above ['creatio ex nihilo' - out of nothing] - no; for we know they took from already existing lifeforms and only changed them into another lifeform.

Jenwitemi:



In a nutshell, not even God(the jewish version, anyway) can create something out of nothing. The implication of that being that the bible god was an ancient genetic engineer just like the ones we have today.

I just thought that i should let that one out of the bag.  

If this is so why cant your present scientist/engineer create a replica up to like 60% of man till date? After all man as an engineer have created engines mechanized and electrical. Man should be able to design another man from something/nothing like u said above

Jenwitemi:

I've heard this arguement being made by cristians in some of these endless debates about creation that scientists can't create out of nothing when they do their genetic manipulation voodoos. And i thought to myself, "well, the bible god cannot, either".

According to genesis, the creation of adam and eve did not come out of nothing. Adam was formed out of the EARTH (a big SOMETHING), and Eve was formed out of Adam's RIB (another SOMETHING).

In a nutshell, not even God(the jewish version, anyway) can create something out of nothing. The implication of that being that the bible god was an ancient genetic engineer just like the ones we have today.

I just thought that i should let that one out of the bag.  

Bros this your logic is terribly skewed o!  

You can start by answering olaadegbu's question

OLAADEGBU:

And who created the "earth" from which Adam was formed?

As usual, a scholarly response from viaro.  

viaro:

It's nice to think to yourself; but your logic is flawed. Think carefully about the following -

(a) Creation out of nothing is what is peculiarly known as 'creatio ex nihilo'.

(b) Creation out of nothing is different from 'creation out of something' - the latter is commonly known as 'creatio ex materia', and that is the case applied to Adam having been created from the dust of the earth.

(c) Both ^^ creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia are found in the Bible.

(d) However, the scientists who worked on such cases as the Craig Venter synthetic life could not be said to have done the same thing as (a) above ['creatio ex nihilo' - out of nothing] - no; for we know they took from already existing lifeforms and only changed them into another lifeform.

petres_007:

Bros this your logic is terribly skewed o!  

God the intelligent designer gave every one brain to reason logically or other wise. The op have decided to use hs/hers to reason other wise

viaro:



(c) Both ^^ creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia are found in the Bible.

How did the bible God create the milky way galaxy for example from nothing?

Jenwitemi:

I've heard this arguement being made by cristians in some of these endless debates about creation that scientists can't create out of nothing when they do their genetic manipulation voodoos. And i thought to myself, "well, the bible god cannot, either".

According to genesis, the creation of adam and eve did not come out of nothing. Adam was formed out of the EARTH (a big SOMETHING), and Eve was formed out of Adam's RIB (another SOMETHING).

In a nutshell, not even God(the jewish version, anyway) can create something out of nothing. The implication of that being that the bible god was an ancient genetic engineer just like the ones we have today.

I just thought that i should let that one out of the bag.

According to the bible Yahweh created the universe from nothing, how exactly he did it, no body even wants to attempt to answer it, the mantra is that Yahweh just created the universe from nothing even when observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live, because the way he said he created the universe does not agree with what has been seen and observed. . . .Christian cosmologist agree that the creation accounts in the bible are mythical but they still insist that yahweh created the universe even when they themselves have relegated the creation accounts of Yahweh to the realm of mytholgy(allegory). . . .I just don't understand how they do these things. . .They seem to enjoy speaking from both sides of their mouths. . . .

How and where did Yahweh, Allah etc come from; did he/they just appear out of nothing in space and without cause? Please reduce the latin.

mrmayor:

How and where did Yahweh, Allah etc come from; did he/they just appear out of nothing in space and without cause? Please reduce the latin.

Are u a genuine seeker or just pretending? ur response will tell me how best to answer ur question, which is like asking 'to whom is a bachelor married'

mrmayor:

How and where did Yahweh, Allah etc come from; did he/they just appear out of nothing in space and without cause? Please reduce the latin.

As always, I enjoy your queries, mrmayor. And here is my answer:

(1) First, what is 'space'? If you're talking about what is "in space", then you're mixing up issues for yourself, because you're setting the Creator after the creation. Why? Well, does science not tell you that space had a beginning? I tend to think that this is the inference that is making the rounds in current scientific thinking: that, space has not always existed, but rather had a finite beginning.

(2) As such, if you could look beyond the very beginning of all things, then derive your equation from before that point, perhaps then you could start talking about 'true origins' of anything in particular that you want to examine. It would be interesting to see your theoretical equations on that.

mazaje:

How did the bible God create the milky way galaxy for example from nothing?

He spoke the Universe into existence. If you have anything to show that the Universe created itself, I am willing to consider what evidence you may have.

mazaje:

According to the bible Yahweh created the universe from nothing, how exactly he did it, no body even wants to attempt to answer it, the mantra is that Yahweh just created the universe from nothing even when observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live, because the way he said he created the universe does not agree with what has been seen and observed.

Please mazaje, can you point us to two simple things:

(1)  how does "observable evidence" say and show that God did not create the Universe in which we live?

(2)  what then is the logical conclusions about the "observable evidence" in regards to the origin of the Universe: did it create itself? If not, what then?

The implications of your answer would be pivotal and huge indeed - for one, it would help us understand whether you understand the meaning of origins; as well, it would help us see precisely what the "observable evidence" is saying and showing without your own interpolations.

mazaje:
Christian cosmologist agree that the creation accounts in the bible are mythical but they still insist that yahweh created the universe even when they themselves have relegated the creation accounts of Yahweh to the realm of mytholgy(allegory). . . .I just don't understand how they do these things. . .They seem to enjoy speaking from both sides of their mouths. . . .

I'm unaware of any Christian cosmologist denying the creation of the Universe. Interpretating it as an allegory is not to say that the Universe was not created - these are vastly two different things. However, it is one thing for the atheist to keep hiding behind these excuses of what he/she thinks 'Christian cosmologists' agree or disagree on, just as the assertions of any atheist does not establish any conclusions.

What we want to know is this: whatever the atheist concludes, we want simple and reasoned evidence for such assertions: if the assertion is such that the Universe created itself (not minding HOW it did so), please let the atheist simply show us evidence for a Universe that created itself - for now, the details are not really the big concern.

viaro:

He spoke the Universe into existence.

Really? I will like to see the evidence you have that show  your God speaking the universe into existence. . . .Or is this one of the baseless assertions that has no evidence for it?. . . .What language did he use? How does voice turn into matter?. . . .I will really like to know these things. . . .

If you have anything to show that the Universe created itself, I am willing to consider what evidence you may have.

Again the irony escapes you. . . .I will be right there with what I have to show as soon as you show me that the universe did not create itself. . . .

viaro:

Please mazaje, can you point us to two simple things:

(1)  how does "observable evidence" say and show that God did not create the Universe in which we live?

I keep telling you that your God gave a detailed account of how he said he created the universe, Modern cosmology with its observable evidence says that account is flat out wrong. . . .

(2)  what then is the logical conclusions about the "observable evidence" in regards to the origin of the Universe: did it create itself? If not, what then?
The implications of your answer would be pivotal and huge indeed - for one, it would help us understand whether you understand the meaning of origins; as well, it would help us see precisely what the "observable evidence" is saying and showing without your own interpolations.

Its not conclusive for now, progress is always made, I am not even talking about origins but observable evidence about what we see. The origins card is the only thing you have up your sleeve. . . .

I'm unaware of any Christian cosmologist denying the creation of the Universe.

I am aware of christian cosmologist denying what their God actually said with regards to HOW he allegedly created the universe.

Interpretating it as an allegory is not to say that the Universe was not created - these are vastly two different things.

Where in the bible does the creation account says that it is an allegory?. . .Its just like the manufactures of the BMW telling you in details how they created the the BMW 7 series but you keep insisting that they are speaking allegorically. . . . .Interpreting it as an allegory says that they disagree with what is written down when they compare it with their observable data and evidence. . . .I notice that christian cosmologist don't interpret the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus as an allegory only the genesis creation account . . . .Very telling. . . .

What we want to know is this: whatever the atheist concludes, we want simple and reasoned evidence for such assertions: if the assertion is such that the Universe created itself (not minding HOW it did so), please let the atheist simply show us evidence for a Universe that created itself - for now, the details are not really the big concern.

You keep talking about evidence as if you have ever provided any . . . .Your evidence to show that the universe did not create itself is WHAT?. . .

Jenwitemi:

. . .And i thought to myself,  

^^^
Romans 1:19-22  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  (20)  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:  (21)  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  (22)  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

There you go: you thought to yourself.

So, why did he not speak Adam and Eve into existence also? Why did he not create them both "exnihilo" as he did the entire universe? If he could create something as huge as the universe out of nothing, what stopped him from creating the tiny and insignificant "first couple" the same way? Why did he need dusts of the earth and a rib bone?

viaro:

He spoke the Universe into existence. If you have anything to show that the Universe created itself, I am willing to consider what evidence you may have.

mazaje:

viaro link=topic=451756.msg6097254#msg6097254 date=1274885962:

He spoke the Universe into existence.

Really? I will like to see the evidence you have that show your God speaking the universe into existence.

Yes, really. If you want to read it, we can show you in the Bible; if you are asking for another type of 'evidence', please let us know. This brash use of the word "evidence" that you have no clue about but just like to hide behind, we shall deal with it here and NOW.

mazaje:

. . .Or is this one of the baseless assertions that have no evidence for them?. . . .What language did he use? How does voice turn into matter?. . . .I will really like to know these things.

I'm sure this is all another one of your priceless jokes. I believe the Universe was CREATED BY GOD - you believe otherwise. I am very, very willing to discuss anything with you on that subject (minus the jokes) - if you are willing to discuss. It would therefore mean that you are willing also to show evidence for your own counter argument, rather than hiding behind excuses of feigned ignorance. The Universe did NOT create itself, it did NOT emerge completely on its own - the science affirm that the Universe had a beginning and did not self-create. . . these are issues before us. If you have anything else to counter these premises, please have the freedom to share with us and play it less on the jokes you have been posting all along.

mazaje:

Again the irony escapes you. . . .I will be right there with what I have to show as soon as you show me that the universe did not create itself.

Okay, let's have it your way. If you want to argue that the Universe created itself, let's discuss that - please show us how your theories or postulations for a Universe that created itself. . . leave your irony of escapism out on this one.

Jenwitemi:

So, why did he not speak Adam and Eve into existence also? Why did he not create them both "exnihilo" as he did the entire universe? If he could create something as huge as the universe out of nothing, what stopped him from creating the tiny and insignificant "first couple" the same way? Why did he need dusts of the earth and a rib bone?

Man can talk God can talk. Man can reason God can reason. Thats the true meaning of man in Gods image. The uniqueness is the difference. The universe doesn't have the characteristics of man. Man is unique because he wasn't spoken like the universe

mazaje:

I keep telling you that your God gave a detailed account of how he said he created the universe, Modern cosmology with its observable evidence says that account is flat out wrong.

Modern cosmoslogy does not argue about or against or in favour of God or a supernatural Agency. . .  unless you don't have a clue what modern cosmology is all about. I find your cheap statements rather entertaining than serious.

mazaje:
Its not conclusive for now, progress is always made, I am not even talking about origins but observable evidence about what we see. The origins card is the only thing you have up your sleeve.

Dude, you just happen to flatter yourself far too much. Yes, I admit that the ORIGINS card is what I have always consistently presented - and for good reasons:

(1) Because you also have been arguing about ORIGINS and making statements about the origins of the Universe. I asked somewhere that if what you are saying is different from 'origins', then please explain - you don't seem to have done so.

(2)  When we talk about "creation", we know we're talking about ORIGINS - so, if you have any other idea apart from ORIGINS when we talk about the creation of the Universe, I would have expected you to show it. You have not done so - which makes me wonder why you are now complaining about "ORIGINS".

Consequently, if you are not talking about origins but rather about "observable evidence", I would also be interested in how you are trying to use that same "observable evidence" for the same ORIGINS that you are shying away from - what is the correlation between them such that you tend to find an exclusivism between them now?

mazaje:

I am aware of christian cosmologist denying what their God actually said with regards to HOW he allegedly created the universe.

That is not even a point - it is rather an excuse. I am also aware of many so-called "Christians" denying the Christian faith wholesale - so what is the big deal there that seem to be so important and heavily weighs on this argument?

You remind me of Dawkins and his miserly approach to an arguement of this sort. The moment he realises he's not making any sense, he twists the whole thing quickly to strawmen about what some 'Christian-this-and-that' has said on this and the other - as if that has anything in itself to do with what he's been presented with. You, in the same manner, are using this excuse that just because some so-called 'Christian' cosmologists deny this and that, therefore . . . what? I could also resort to the same kind of baseless argument that I know of some non-religious scientists who talk about 'God' affirmatively - would that prove that they agree there's a God somewhere?

mazaje:
Where in the bible does the creation account says that it is an allegory?

I don't know - you tell me, since it is from you and your hinted 'cosmologists' that have been parading that idea. What I have basically argued is not an allegory - but the point that the Universe was CREATED and did not create itself.

mazaje:

You keep talking about evidence as if you have ever provided any . . . .Your evidence to show that the universe did not create itself is WHAT?

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!

Jenwitemi:

So, why did he not speak Adam and Eve into existence also? Why did he not create them both "exnihilo" as he did the entire universe? If he could create something as huge as the universe out of nothing, what stopped him from creating the tiny and insignificant "first couple" the same way? Why did he need dusts of the earth and a rib bone?

I think you have completely missed the point and seem to be arguing against yourself. But let me help you come to terms with the flawed assumptions you are presenting:

(1)  Originally, your argument was that not even God could create something out of nothing  - that has been trashed, because you simply did not consider the weakness of your own argument was that it was ill-formulated and ill-informed. To this end, I presented two things to you: creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia - you don't seem to have said anything to counter that, have you?

(2)   As regards the creation of Adam and Eve and why it was not ex nihilo, your problem is that you don't seem to catch the drift as to what is meant by ex materia. Let's even for the sake of argument assume any validity in your argument (which is not even an argument), my question to you is this: in what universe would creation from ex materia be found? For Adam and Eve to have existed, there should be a Universe predating them - they cannot emerge outside the created Universe; and that is why they were created ex materia within the Universe that came from ex nihilo.

(3)   As to the materials from which Adam and Eve were created, your argument does nothing against the ability of God to create any other thing ex nihilo following creation of the Universe. Whether small or great, He created them - ex nihilo and ex materia. How does either of these (ex nihilo or ex materia) establish any substance in your argument about what He is able to do?

(4)   Again, back to your basic argument in the OP - you were concerned that "scientists can't create out of nothing", and that is the point: we can't argue against that, for no scientist has honestly said in clear terms that they are creating anything ex nihilo. If therefore that was your initial premise, and we have seen that your equating them is baseless, where does your argument lead?

viaro:


Yes, really. If you want to read it, we can show you in the Bible; if you are asking for another type of 'evidence', please let us know. This brash use of the word "evidence" that you have no clue about but just like to hide behind, we shall deal with it here and NOW.

The bible creation account does not agree with what I see and what has been observed, Was the earth with plants in it alone in existence before all the other stars, planets, asteroids, comets, galaxy and other cosmic bodies were created as clearly written in the bible?. . .Were the stars  created solely to give light upon the earth as your God said in genesis? Was the moon created to rule over the Night? How does a rock rule over the night?. . .If the biblical creation account is flat out wrong why should it believe when it says that the God it is talking about created the universe when the creation account of such God does not fit with the facts that we know?. . . .

Saying that your God created the universe is just an assumption, since you do not have any evidence like a video recording of the said God creating the universe or the God himself appearing to you and personally telling you that he created the universe or any of his signatures that bares his name on anything that you see around to show that he created that thing. You base your entire assumptions on what? Mythical narratives and assumptions written by unknown tribal people very long ago? People who did not even know what the stars really are?. . . . .Interesting. . .

I'm sure this is all another one of your priceless jokes. I believe the Universe was CREATED BY GOD - you believe otherwise. I am very, very willing to discuss anything with you on that subject (minus the jokes) - if you are willing to discuss. It would therefore mean that you are willing also to show evidence for your own counter argument, rather than hiding behind excuses of feigned ignorance. The Universe did NOT create itself, it did NOT emerge completely on its own - the science affirm that the Universe had a beginning and did not self-create. . . these are issues before us. If you have anything else to counter these premises, please have the freedom to share with us and play it less on the jokes you have been posting all along.

I believe that the universe was NOT created by any God(by God I mean the Gods of man made religion), since NO God has ever claimed he created the universe, Men claim that their various Gods created the universe. . . . .Sure the universe did not create it self but it wasn't also created by any of the Gods of man made religions. . .We don't know what created the universe and that remains a FACT, if you claim you know then, provide evidence simple, pointing to age long myths (that have no evidence to support them) written by men is laughable since almost every religion and culture have their own age long myths about their various Gods creating the universe. . . .

Okay, let's have it your way. If you want to argue that the Universe created itself, let's discuss that - please show us how your theories or postulations for a Universe that created itself. . . leave your irony of escapism out on this one.

On a serious note now no kiddo, The universe did not create it self that I know. But I posit that no one knows the true origin of the universe and how it was created, You can only hypothesize. If you insist that you know the true origin of the universe then its up to you to provide objective evidence to show for it. . .

mazaje:

.

Saying that your God created the universe is just an assumption, since you do not have any evidence like a video recording of the said God creating the universe or the God himself appearing to you and personally telling you that he created the universe or any of his signatures that bares his name on anything that you see around to show that he created that thing. You base your entire assumptions on what? Mythical narratives and assumptions written by unknown tribal people very long ago? People who did not even know what the stars really are?. . . . .Interesting. . .

neither do u or science have anything about its creation

mazaje:

On a serious note now no kiddo, [b]The universe did not create it self that I know. [/b]But I posit that no one knows the true origin of the universe and how it was created, You can only hypothesize. If you insist that you know the true origin of the universe then its up to you to provide objective evidence to show for it. . .

Why then have u been troubling us about the universe creating it self?

Lai;lai u must prove that the universe created it self no retreat

mazaje:

The bible creation account does not agree with what I see and what has been observed,

No problem - if what you see is "evidence" that the Universe was not created at all, please let's see that evidence of what you allegedly saw. You have said you're not talking about ORIGINS, and I'm waiting for you to explain precisely what it is you're on about.

mazaje:
Was the earth with plants in it alone in existence before all the other stars, planets, asteroids, comets, galaxy and other cosmic bodies were created as clearly written in the bible?

Please let me know where you find it "clearly written" the way you so described above^^. Is it possible that you're trying to force your own ideas in here somewhere and then assuming that is what is "clearly written in the Bible"? In any case, please share with me.

mazaje:

Saying that your God created the universe is just an assumption, since you do not have any evidence like a video recording of the said God creating the universe or the God himself appearing to you and personally telling you that he created the universe or any of his signatures that bares his name on anything that you see around to show that he created that thing.

For your sake, I would tacitly oblige you that it would be an assumption that the Universe was created - but there again, it is a very STRONG assumption for which I offer no apology at all. The reason for that is this: there is no science showing anywhere that the Universe was not created. NONE. In fact, when some have tried to deeply research and theorise about this, they use the term "God" affirmatively but not in the religious sense. The point is that, it is hard for such researchers and theoretical physicists to conclude that the Universe was not created, or that God did not create the Universe, or even that the Universe created itself! This is why I am asking you to show me any substance about any counter arguments to these three basic premises or any other assumptions you may make to the contrary. WHERE is it?

mazaje:

You base your entire assumptions on what? Mythical narratives and assumptions written by unknown tribal people very long ago? People who did not even know what the stars really are?. . . . .Interesting.

Isn't it ironical that these "tribal people" had the common sense to say that the Universe was created? Isn't it ironic that these tribal people have made the atheistic assumption of an eternal universe an absolutely redundant and most illiterate assertion that has long been abandoned? To assure you, I base my "assumption"  on what has not been refuted about what those "tribal people" asserted about the Universe having been created - more so, because NO SCIENCE ANYWHERE has contradicted them at any level! It is quite interesting that the irony escapes you that it is the atheistic assumption that was baseless and have now been abadoned, no? Let's laugh. . . three cheers!

mazaje:

I believe that the universe was NOT created by any God(by God I mean the Gods of man made religion), since NO God has ever claimed he created the universe,

Thankfully, the God I worship and believe in is not man-made (nevermind that you so like to assert the contrary). Even at that, the same God has indeed claimed that He created the Universe. I don't have any problem with your belief - I know you hold on to it in a most tenacious manner just like any religious person would; but that holds no consequences at all in the face of the fact that you have yet argued to no avail beyond your merely asserting things into science that science does not say.

mazaje:

Men claim that their various Gods created the universe. . . . .Sure the universe did not create it self but it wasn't also created by any of the Gods of man made religions.

I've heard you - you don't have to keep repeating that refrain as if that is what is at the heart of our discussion. I don't really like you turning round in circles and dancing away from the main points we're discussing.

mazaje:

We don't know what created the universe and that remains a FACT, if you claim you know then, provide evidence simple, pointing to age long myths (that have no evidence to support them) written by men is laughable since almost every religion and culture have their own age long myths about their various Gods creating the universe.

That you don't know what created the Universe is NOT a "fact" but an excuse. It's either you're wishing that it is a 'FACT' so that no one would have to admit the obvious (that the Universe was created indeed); or you just wish to keep asserting it over and over again and appeal to absolutely nothing to commit to your postulations.

mazaje:
On a serious note now no kiddo, The universe did not create it self that I know. But I posit that no one knows the true origin of the universe and how it was created, You can only hypothesize. If you insist that you know the true origin of the universe then its up to you to provide objective evidence to show for it.

I think this is the fine point that I would like to leave it at. I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details (I know a few in theoretical physics who play with such hypothesis - but it's become fashionable to hear them say that science is only a guess, the 'best gues'). Anyways, I am persuaded that a supernatural Agency created the Universe - and that supernatural Agency is what we know as God. Not only are we agreed that the Universe did not create itself; but it is most probable from many cutting edge thinking and research that "something" other than the Universe itself might have caused its origin (Stephen Hawkings, for instance, is one example I've had in mind who uses 'God' loosely without a religious connotation). Whether this is theoretically 'provable' is open to debate.

Thanks for the time, enjoy.

Oh dear, here we go again.

viaro:

No problem - if what you see is "evidence" that the Universe was not created at all, please let's see that evidence of what you allegedly saw. You have said you're not talking about ORIGINS, and I'm waiting for you to explain precisely what it is you're on about.

Aren't you tried of crying all over the place and sounding like the broken record that you truly are?. . . .I am talking about observable evidence that shows that the earth was NOT created before all the stars, Evidence that show that the universe was not created in 6 days, evidence that shows that the earth was NOT created before the sun, evidence that shows that some of the other stars are solar systems like ours, not some things that were created solely to produce light on the earth. . . .Evidence about planetary formations, evidence that shows that the stars are not placed or hanging in some elusive firmament as the bible puts it. . . .etc. . .   

Please let me know where you find it "clearly written" the way you so described above^^. Is it possible that you're trying to force your own ideas in here somewhere and then assuming that is what is "clearly written in the Bible"? In any case, please share with me.

You can not run faster than your shadow can you?. . .

Gen 1: 12  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
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,
Gen 1:18 And 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 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Its is VERY CLEARLY stated in the passage that the earth was in existence with water and plants in it before all the stars were created after words. . . .It also very clearly states that the stars were created specifically to give light upon the earth . . . .



Here is the picture of the milky way galaxy with its hundreds of billions of stars (which is just one out of the many billions of the other galaxies around) that indicates the position of our solar system in the milky way, how exactly was the earth created before all the billions of stars in this galaxy? How exactly were all the billions of stars many of which are solar systems with planets revolving around them created solely to give light upon the earth as written in the bible?

For your sake, I would tacitly oblige you that it would be an assumption that the Universe was created - but there again, it is a very STRONG assumption for which I offer no apology at all. The reason for that is this: there is no science showing anywhere that the Universe was not created. NONE. In fact, when some have tried to deeply research and theorise about this, they use the term "God" affirmatively but not in the religious sense. The point is that, it is hard for such researchers and theoretical physicists to conclude that the Universe was not created, or that God did not create the Universe, or even that the Universe created itself! This is why I am asking you to show me any substance about any counter arguments to these three basic premises or any other assumptions you may make to the contrary. WHERE is it?

OK agreed the universe had a cause, Do you know what the cause of the universe is? Saying that you know what the cause of the universe is with out providing any evidence for your claims is pure bull. . . .The universe has a cause and your evidence to show that Yahweh is the cause of the universe and not something else is WHAT?. . .  .

Isn't it ironical that these "tribal people" had the common sense to say that the Universe was created?

Most other tribal people have also stated that the universe was created and that there God created the universe so what's new there? . . . . . 

Isn't it ironic that these tribal people have made the atheistic assumption of an eternal universe an absolutely redundant and most illiterate assertion that has long been abandoned?

You are still biting your tail and crying eh? Which atheistic assumption is it that says that the universe is eternal?. . .There are some theist that believe and have also stated that the earth is flat, does that represent the entire theistic position?. . .A lot of other atheist also hold to the view that the universe was created, no?. . . .Keep on biting your long tail. . .

I know you don't have anything meaningful to say so, I understand why you keep running around chasing your tail and crying at the same time. . . .

To assure you, I base my "assumption"  on what has not been refuted about what those "tribal people" asserted about the Universe having been created - more so, because NO SCIENCE ANYWHERE has contradicted them at any level! It is quite interesting that the irony escapes you that it is the atheistic assumption that was baseless and have now been abadoned, no? Let's laugh. . . three cheers!

Still chasing your tail eh? There are so many atheist that do NOT hold that view so what exactly are you crying about here? . . . .Every science everywhere has contradicted their claim that the earth with water and plants in it was created before the sun and all the stars, no? Every scientific observation also contradicted their claim of the stars created solely for the purpose of giving light on the earth, no? . . .Every scientific observation also contradicts their claim that the universe was created in 6 days, no?

Thankfully, the God I worship and believe in is not man-made (nevermind that you so like to assert the contrary). Even at that, the same God has indeed claimed that He created the Universe. I don't have any problem with your belief - I know you hold on to it in a most tenacious manner just like any religious person would; but that holds no consequences at all in the face of the fact that you have yet argued to no avail beyond your merely asserting things into science that science does not say.

When did the said God appear to you personally and told you that he created the universe?. . . .Your God is not man made as you say, pls can you point to the said God or anything it said or did, that is independent of man made stories, influence, traditions and culture?. . . .Will you just point to the said God and show that he exist  on his own independent of human influence?

I've heard you - you don't have to keep repeating that refrain as if that is what is at the heart of our discussion. I don't really like you turning round in circles and dancing away from the main points we're discussing.

And why is this not also part of the main points of the discussion?. . . .

That you don't know what created the Universe is NOT a "fact" but an excuse. It's either you're wishing that it is a 'FACT' so that no one would have to admit the obvious (that the Universe was created indeed); or you just wish to keep asserting it over and over again and appeal to absolutely nothing to commit to your postulations.

The universe was created, don't you have any other thing else to say beside this? Of course the universe had a cause, How that cause equates to your deity is what I will really want you to show. . . .So many other cultures have also stated that the universe had a cause and that it is their God not yours that created it, Why are they wrong?. . . . . .I would expect you to provide some evidence to show that your God alone created the universe. no?. . .

I think this is the fine point that I would like to leave it at. I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details (I know a few in theoretical physics who play with such hypothesis - but it's become fashionable to hear them say that science is only a guess, the 'best gues'). Anyways, I am persuaded that a supernatural Agency created the Universe - and that supernatural Agency is what we know as God. Not only are we agreed that the Universe did not create itself; but it is most probable from many cutting edge thinking and research that "something" other than the Universe itself might have caused its origin (Stephen Hawkings, for instance, is one example I've had in mind who uses 'God' loosely without a religious connotation). Whether this is theoretically 'provable' is open to debate.

Thanks for the time, enjoy.

My friend since when did you become a deist? . . . .On a serious note now, Sure the universe did not self create, I believe it had a cause, what that cause is remains UNKNOWN to us, Scientist have ended with a singularity, What cause the singularity remains unknown. I have gone pass baseless claims and counter claims, I am more interested in specifics, God created the universe you say, the problem with this claim is that it is redundant since there are many Gods that also claim to have created the universe.

@mazaje,

I really wish I had the time all day to walk you through your arguments. However, between my busy schedule the coming weeks, I shall try and pop in and out as much as I can manage.

It appears you actually blew hot and cold and lost your way around. Instead of muddling things up, it would have helped you to make your case simple enough and point out what your concerns were. What exactly am I to take from your rejoinder - that all what you argued are to show that the Universe was NOT CREATED? You don't seem to really grasp this point, but I didn't expect you would anyways.

mazaje:

Aren't you tried of crying all over the place and sounding like the broken record that you truly are?. . . .I am talking about observable evidence that shows that the earth was NOT created before all the stars,

I don't think that the Bible concludes that the earth was created before the stars. Often when people read Genesis, they assume a literal chronology that ignores certain points mentioned elsewhere. 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. The point is that Genesis does not say that God made the earth before the stars; but merely mentioned that He made the stars also (Gen. 1:16), whereas we know from the same Genesis that "light" was already long mentioned in [Gen. 1:3] before other 'lights' mentioned in latter verses [Gen. 1:14]. I'll expound on this latter.

mazaje:

Evidence that show that the universe was not created in 6 days,

I'm not one of those who interprets the chronology of 'day' in Genesis 1 as a literal 24hr reckoning of time. For one, Psalm 90:4 shows us that time is relative and not static, and it is only when we look at the context and the big picture that we understand the passages we are trying to decipher.

Yes, I know that those who pander to the YEC (Y[/b]oung [b]E[/b]arth [b]C[/b]reationism) see those verses in Genesis 1 as amounting to nothing other than literal 24-hour divisions; but Genesis 2:4 infact specifically declares "[b]the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" as in the "day" they were made - and we know that a "generation" (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh), whether of humanity or of cosmological entities, is far beyond a literal 24-hour day. Isaiah 41:4 also tacitly declares that God has been 'calling the generations from the beginning', and this should have been clear to those who force a literal 24-hr 'day' into Genesis 1 creation. There is not a single verse in the Bible that concludes that the UNIVERSE was created in just 6 days of literal 24 hour divisons.

mazaje:

evidence that shows that the earth was NOT created before the sun,

Genesis 1:3 mentions 'light' and 'day' before talking about other lights (greater light, lesser lights) in verses 14 - 16. There is no verse that one can sincerely draw upon to conclude that the earth was chronologically created before the sun. Job 38:4-7 shows that the Universe had already been created before the earth was created - the angels witnessed the creation of the earth. Isaiah 13:10 mentions 'the constellations' as well, even though we don't read them precisely in Genesis; and in Moses' blessing of the Tribes of Israel, he indeed mentions something akin to photosynthesis in "the precious fruits brought forth by the sun" (Deut. 33:14) - which makes us understand that the fruits of any plant would not in fact be there in the first place had the sun been a later arrival in the creation of the Universe.

mazaje:

evidence that shows that some of the other stars are solar systems like ours, not some things that were created solely to produce light on the earth.

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".

And I have asked for any verse to show where the Bible says the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth - where is that verse? The Bible does not draw such a conclusion; and infact, the verses you quoted do not lead to that inference. What we do read is that the stars with the other entities are ALSO meant "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Gen. 1:14). Of course, this does not mean indeed that such were the only things defining the purposes for which they were created; but it is quite dubious to force your own misgivings into the text and argue repeatedly that the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth! You just can't see what's in front of your eyes even when you quoted the verses and rushed to bolden some. ha!

mazaje:

Evidence about planetary formations,

. . . and what infact shows in the Bible that the planets were not formed? Not only do we read of the sun, the moon, the planets, and all the host of heaven (2 Kings 23:5) and the "contellations" of heaven (Isaiah 13:10), we also read that even where God was creating what exists, He did so by ALSO "forming" them:
[list][li]the LORD God formed (יצר - yâtsar) man of the dust of the ground [Gen. 2:7][/li]
[li]out of the ground the LORD God formed (יצר - yâtsar) every beast of the field [Gen. 2:19][/li]
[li]God 'formed (יצר - yâtsar) the earth and the world' [Psalm 90:2][/li]
[li]He is "The great God that formed (יצר - yâtsar) all things" [Prov. 26:10][/li]
[li]'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed (יצר - yâtsar) the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed (יצר - yâtsar) it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else' [Isaiah 45:18][/li][/list]

The argument about "planetary formations" just does not cut it for you. Planets were "formed", and so what? That "proves" that they were NOT CREATED? In fact, we understand that some of these cosmological entities are called "planets" by arbitrary rules, which is why some hold that there are 9 planets rather than 12 planets held by some (a recent concensus says that Pluto is no longer to be regarded as a "planet". The so-called "evidence" of planetray formations does not negate what we read in Scripture about God "forming" these things.

mazaje:
evidence that shows that the stars are not placed or hanging in some elusive firmament as the bible puts it. . . .etc.

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?

mazaje:

Its is VERY CLEARLY stated in the passage that the earth was in existence with water and plants in it before all the stars were created after words. . . .It also very clearly states that the stars were created specifically to give light upon the earth

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.

mazaje:



Here is the picture of the milky way galaxy with its hundreds of billions of stars (which is just one out of the many billions of the other galaxies around) that indicates the position of our solar system in the milky way, how exactly was the earth created before all the billions of stars in this galaxy? How exactly were all the billions of stars many of which are solar systems with planets revolving around them created solely to give light upon the earth as written in the bible?

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).

mazaje:

OK agreed the universe had a cause, Do you know what the cause of the universe is? Saying that you know what the cause of the universe is with out providing any evidence for your claims is pure bull. . . .The universe has a cause and your evidence to show that Yahweh is the cause of the universe and not something else is WHAT?.

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.

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?

mazaje:
. . .
Most other tribal people have also stated that the universe was created and that there God created the universe so what's new there?

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.

mazaje:

You are still biting your tail and crying eh? Which atheistic assumption is it that says that the universe is eternal?. . .There are some theist that believe and have also stated that the earth is flat, does that represent the entire theistic position?

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.

mazaje:

Still chasing your tail eh? There are so many atheist that do NOT hold that view so what exactly are you crying about here? . . . .Every science everywhere has contradicted their claim that the earth with water and plants in it was created before the sun and all the stars, no? Every scientific observation also contradicted their claim of the stars created solely for the purpose of giving light on the earth, no? . . .Every scientific observation also contradicts their claim that the universe was not created in 6 days, no?

Your noise has been addressed above - the '6 days' are NOT 24hr divisions (see Psa. 90:4 and Gen. 2:4 - we know that "generations" are far more than a 24 hr reckoning; and also see Isaiah 41:4 - God has been "calling the generations from the beginning". I also addressed the fact that the account does not conclude that the stars were SOLELY for giving light upon the earth (even where you quoted Genesis 1:14, you still missed it - can you tell us what was on your mind?). Meanwhile, I would appreciate that you stop waving that redundant excuse and stop denying the fact that atheists held that the Universe was eternal - that does not say that ALL atheists everywhere held the same view, so why do you keep begging the question?

mazaje:
When did the said God appear to you personally and told you that he created the universe?.

Did I claim any such personal appearance? Where?

mazaje:
Your God is not man made as you say, pls can you point to the said God or anything it said or did, that is independent of man made stories, influence, traditions and culture?. . . .Will you just point to the said God and show that he exist  on his own independent of human influence?

Yes. Without any religion or cultural inferences, the Universe was CREATED by God. Even scientists who have tried to pry into the epoch before the singularity cannot dismiss the fact that the Universe was created rather than the Universe creating itself - I gave an example of Stephen Hawkings who uses "God" without meaning it in the religious sense. If you have anything science anywhere that the Universe created itself, please let me know - even if you can produce "proof" from your wild atheism, I will listen to what you produce and discuss.

mazaje:

And why is this not also part of the main points of the discussion?

Because you keep skidding and never sounding serious - on the one hand, you are not talking about "origins" (so you claimed); but on the other hand, you want to use all wild statements and your personal drama to argue issues around ORIGINS! Seeing you are so confused and cannot show anything from ORIGINS SCIENCE for your wild assertions, the best you can do is offer is terse ignorance that is beyond a joke!

mazaje:
The universe was created, don't you have any other thing else to say beside this?

No - because I have been discussing ORIGINS with you and nothing else. What are you doing here if you didn't want to discuss CREATION? Em, tsk-tsk: look again at the topic of the thread: "CREATING from Nothing", No? Should I leave that and come play your skidding up and down the street?

mazaje:

My friend since when did you become a deist? . . . .On a serious note now, Sure the universe did not self create, I believe it had a cause, what that cause is remains UNKNOWN to us, Scientist have ended with a singularity, What cause the singularity remains unknown.

Hahaha!! I'm not a deist, mazaje. The fact that I mentioned "supernatural Agency" should be clear to you that I was careful to not set my points on deistic coasters. Why? Because deism actually does not incline to anything "supernatural" - but that just shows you really haven't got these things sorted for yourself.

However, scientists might've ended with a singularity - but that does not mean that the singularity is all there is to ORIGINS of our Universe. Please see above my comments on said singularity.

Enjoy.

@mazaje,

There's something which I wanted to point out to you - it might've skipped my mind as I was trying to focus on the objections you offered earlier.

When I said this:

viaro:

. . . What exactly am I to take from your rejoinder - that all what you argued are to show that the Universe was NOT CREATED?

. . . I just wanted to be sure that we're not just filling pages and arguing aimlessly. Indeed, my concerns in engaging you was all about whether you have anything from any science (particularly ORIGINS SCIENCE) to show that the Universe was NOT CREATED - that's what seems to be what we've been trying to find out from whatever arguments you may propound.

So, let me go back and post you a reminder about this:

(1)  this was the basic argument in yours (highlighted) which drew my concerns:

mazaje:

According to the bible Yahweh created the universe from nothing, how exactly he did it, no body even wants to attempt to answer it, the mantra is that Yahweh just created the universe from nothing even when observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live, because the way he said he created the universe does not agree with what has been seen and observed.

. . .^^ that is, your argument was that "observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live," -

(2)  and I wanted you to answer these two questions for me:

viaro:

Please mazaje, can you point us to two simple things:

(1)  how does "observable evidence" say and show that God did not create the Universe in which we live?

(2)  what then is the logical conclusions about the "observable evidence" in regards to the origin of the Universe: did it create itself? If not, what then?

I know you have tried to reply to them - but from all that has gone before, you did not show anywhere by any science at all that God did not create the Universe; you did not show that the Universe was NOT CREATED; you did not show anything about the ORIGINS of the Universe in regards to CREATION; - infact, you did not provide me with anything that shows a solid point in your assertion that the Universe was NOT CREATED.

The reason I set those two questions is simple: if your assertion stands in the first premise that God did not create the Universe; the simple logical inference would be the second point that perhaps the Universe created itself. Of course, you didn't argue in favour of the first or the second; but what is particularly interesting is that you didn't seem to have any solid position besides claiming "I don't know" - and that being so, I wonder how you would be maintaining such an assertive position like someone who knows that the Universe was not created.

Yes, you may hold the view that you "don't know" anything about the ORIGINS of the Universe - and I also hold the view that I "don't know" the DETAILS in these things. But like I said, I'm persuaded that God created the Universe - basically from the point of reference: (a) that the Universe did not create itself; (b) that the Universe was created indeed; (c) that no origins science asserts or concludes anywhere that God "DID NOT" create the Universe; (d) that no origins science has concluded that was "not created" - all these are basically different ways of saying the same thing (but that is not arguing that science has concluded any research about "God", therefore, we cannot be using science to make assertions about "God" where science says nothing about Him).

Instead, because I was concerned that you have been trying to make "science" say what it has never said about "God", that prolly was how you drew the argument that "observable evidence clearly says and shows that he did not create the universe in which we live". If anyone was to take the basic point in such an assertion, it would simply mean that you're asserting that the Universe was NOT CREATED - which is not what science at any instance has concluded. The whole point I have tried to make repeatedly is this: NO SCIENCE anywhere has said that God created OR did not create the Universe - which is why I have as well repeatedly asked you for the science of ORIGINS researches where such a statement as you asserted has been made.

It is one thing to use your atheism to argue under "science"; but it is quite another to assert that 'science' says this and that, where in fact 'science' did not say any such thing. If we even leave 'God' out of the discussion for now (since science says nothing about 'God'), WHERE do we read any research paper particularly in ORIGINS SCIENCE asserting what you have asserted?

viaro:

@mazaje,

I really wish I had the time all day to walk you through your arguments. However, between my busy schedule the coming weeks, I shall try and pop in and out as much as I can manage.

I have about an hour or more, but let me see what i can do with the time i have to reply to you. . . .

It appears you actually blew hot and cold and lost your way around. Instead of muddling things up, it would have helped you to make your case simple enough and point out what your concerns were. What exactly am I to take from your rejoinder - that all what you argued are to show that the Universe was NOT CREATED? You don't seem to really grasp this point, but I didn't expect you would anyways.

You are are LYING, you have nothing up your sleeves you I see why you will want us to dwell only on that, which i pointed out was just rhetorical. .I have said that I agree that the universe had a cause will you let that be?. . . . 

I don't think that the Bible concludes that the earth was created before the stars.

It VERY CLEARLY states that, Lying through your teeth and trying to change what is written only shows the extent you will go to keep lying to yourself. The bible VERY CLEARLY states that the sun, moon and the stars were created on the fourth day of creation, when the earth with water and plants was already in existence, Your lies will NOT change that fact. . . .It also states that the plants came into existence on earth on the 3rd day of creation.

Often when people read Genesis, they assume a literal chronology that ignores certain points mentioned elsewhere. 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.

What is this you are doing? What has a passage in Isaiah that is proclaiming disaster against babylong got to do with the creation account in genesis?. . .Constellations is a group of cellestial bodies, The genesis creation account talks the of heavens, no? . . .I am not intrested on your running around, am intrested in what the genesis account ACTUALLY says, not the meaning that you want to give it by drawing from passages in Isaiah that have NOTHING at all to do with the genesis creation account. . . .

The point is that Genesis does not say that God made the earth before the stars; but merely mentioned that He made the stars also (Gen. 1:16), whereas we know from the same Genesis that "light" was already long mentioned in [Gen. 1:3] before other 'lights' mentioned in latter verses [Gen. 1:14]. I'll expound on this latter.

It DOES and VERY CLEARLY, Again lying through your teeth only shows the extent you will go to keep trying to change what has been written and giving it your own meaning, that is actually the reason why there are over 33,000 different sects of your religion. Instead of accepting what was clearly written down as it reads, you prefer to give it a meaning and life of your own, so that it will conform to your views. In genesis we read that the stars were created on the 4th day of creation to give light to the earth which was already in existance, I will go with what the text ACTUALLY says not your merry go round and meaningless equivocations, you can keep on twisting what was written down all you want, but the text is there for all to read. . . .

I'm not one of those who interprets the chronology of 'day' in Genesis 1 as a literal 24hr reckoning of time. For one, Psalm 90:4 shows us that time is relative and not static, and it is only when we look at the context and the big picture that we understand the passages we are trying to decipher.

Psalm 90:4 has NOTHING to do with the creation account in genesis. . . .When you try to decipher as you have done so far, you only end up giving what was written down a life of its own and changing what was actually written down . . . .

Yes, I know that those who pander to the YEC (Y[/b]oung [b]E[/b]arth [b]C[/b]reationism) see those verses in Genesis 1 as amounting to nothing other than literal 24-hour divisions;

Actually I like the young earth creationist for their sincererity, They say it just as it reads, without trying to change anything that was actually written down. . . . Yom in hebrew means day. . . .

but Genesis 2:4 infact specifically declares "[b]the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" as in the "day" they were made - and we know that a "generation" (תּלדה  /  תּולדה - tôledâh),whether of humanity or of cosmological entities, is far beyond a literal 24-hour day. Isaiah 41:4 also tacitly declares that God has been 'calling the generations from the beginning', and this should have been clear to those who force a literal 24-hr 'day' into Genesis 1 creation. There is not a single verse in the Bible that concludes that the UNIVERSE was created in just 6 days of literal 24 hour divisons.

What is this? Some translation bible translation like the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc put it as the history or account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, not the the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.  . .  . But that's just by the way. . .

Actually, I am not really intested in weather the day is 24 hours or not, I'll leave you are your YEC brothers to argue that out, am more intrested in the evidence that says that the universe was created in 6 days. . . .If we are to go by other parts of the bible as you have done, it states that a day in the eyes of the bibleGod is like a thousand years, if that is true then we can conclude that the universe was created in 6000 years, no? Where then is the evidence for this that shows that the universe was created in 6000 years?. . . .

Genesis 1:3 mentions 'light' and 'day' before talking about other lights (greater light, lesser lights) in verses 14 - 16. There is no verse that one can sincerely draw upon to conclude that the earth was chronologically created before the sun.

In the footnote of one of the bible I have here (English standard version) it says that the sun and moon were not mentioned in name because when the passage was written people used to worship the sun and the moon. . . .That was why the sun and the moon were reffered to as greater liight to rule the day and lesser light to rule the night. . . .How does the sun and the moon which is a rock rule anything, it makes sense only if there were considred to be gods at that time. . . .The great light there means the sun, lying through your teeth will not do . . . .

[b]Job 38:4-7 shows that the Universe had already been created before the earth was created[/b] - the angels witnessed the creation of the earth. Isaiah 13:10 mentions 'the constellations' as well, even though we don't read them precisely in Genesis; and in Moses' blessing of the Tribes of Israel, he indeed mentions something akin to photosynthesis in "the precious fruits brought forth by the sun" (Deut. 33:14) - which makes us understand that the fruits of any plant would not in fact be there in the first place had the sun been a later arrival in the creation of the Universe.

Are you lying again? Are angels part of the universe? I though according to the mythology angels reside in heaven? How exactly does a passage that talks about the angels witnessing the creation of the earth equate to the universe being created before the earth? this is a lame attempt at joing things that have nothing to do with each other at all. . .  Again you are rushing to another passages in Job that has nothing to do with the creation account in genesis that claerly says that the earth was created and was in existence before the stars were created, I will go with what the account says not your ridiculous equivocations. . .Really how does the passage in Deut. 33:14 help your case.

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".

. . . Vairo my man, so the stars of heaven there of and constellations means other stars with solar systems eh? . . .Wetin man no go see for here. . . .Do the writers of the bible know anything about the solar system? . . . My friend you are just trying to hard. . .

And I have asked for any verse to show where the Bible says the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth - where is that verse?

Here it is. . .

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,

The Bible does not draw such a conclusion; and infact, the verses you quoted do not lead to that inference. What we do read is that the stars with the other entities are ALSO meant "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Gen. 1:14). Of course, this does not mean indeed that such were the only things defining the purposes for which they were created; but it is quite dubious to force your own misgivings into the text and argue repeatedly that the stars were created SOLELY to give light upon the earth! You just can't see what's in front of your eyes even when you quoted the verses and rushed to bolden some. ha!

If the part you posted is quite different from the one I posted, the one you posted was talking about lights, mine specifically talked about the sun. . .What actually is dubious is when you keep lying through your teeth and saying things that the bible does NOT say, You keep alluding to verses that have nothing to do with the genesis creation account, I wonder why you keep doing these things. . .Keep on lying through your teeth. . . 

Quote from Mazaje -

Really? I will like to see the evidence you have that show  your God speaking the universe into existence. . . .Or is this one of the baseless assertions that has no evidence for it?. . . .What language did he use? How does voice turn into matter?. . . .I will really like to know these things. . . .

  1. Energy can be turned into matter and vice versa. That's science.

  2. No voice (or any other cognisable animation) is conceivable without energy.

  3. A voice therefore contains energy.

  4. Energy, as stated above, can translate to matter.

  5. Resolved Question: God's voice can tranlate to matter.