Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

Sure, that would be an issue. A big issue, if someone believed it was only 4300 years.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

Sure, that would be an issue. A big issue, if someone believed it was only 4300 years.

Well, when did the flood happen then?

FYI:
Here is how science addresses the issue of population size:
http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-snps

RickD wrote:Lemme ask you guys who are either TE, or contemplating it...especially PaulS, because iirc Paul, you said that you believe Noah's flood was local.

Correct me if I'm not accurate with what I assume you believe.
If A&E weren't the first people, and others were alive before them, then I'd assume there were others all over the globe. Then fast forward to Noah. If humanity was spread out across the globe, the local flood couldn't have killed all of humanity. Then how do you explain that while keeping to scripture? The historical belief is that all of humanity was so utterly sinful, that God destroyed every human except Noah's family on the ark. How would you explain those across the globe not affected by the local flood, not being killed?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is still, however, proving that mankind could have come from such a small group AND populated the whole earth in 4300 years.

Sure, that would be an issue. A big issue, if someone believed it was only 4300 years.

Well, when did the flood happen then?

FYI:
Here is how science addresses the issue of population size:
http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-snps

I'm not sure. Ross says around 50,000 ya.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/biblica ... lood-model
But that article is 4 years old, so I don't know if he's adjusted his time on that since then.
And I don't know why my iPhone still won't paste links properly!

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote:Lemme ask you guys who are either TE, or contemplating it...especially PaulS, because iirc Paul, you said that you believe Noah's flood was local.

Well... I'm not TE, and I'm not contemplating it either (Michael Behe has presented too much biological evidence to demonstrate that you just can't get there from here by random mutation and natural selection alone)

But as the OP for this thread, I'll take a shot at it anyway.

Correct me if I'm not accurate with what I assume you believe.
If A&E weren't the first people, and others were alive before them, then I'd assume there were others all over the globe. Then fast forward to Noah. If humanity was spread out across the globe, the local flood couldn't have killed all of humanity. Then how do you explain that while keeping to scripture? The historical belief is that all of humanity was so utterly sinful, that God destroyed every human except Noah's family on the ark. How would you explain those across the globe not affected by the local flood, not being killed?

There are two Scriptural issues that have to be dealt with here.
1. Does Scripture claim that the flood covered the whole globe?
2. Does Scripture claim that all humanity across the globe were killed by the flood?

And the answer to both questions involves the correct understanding of what 'kol erets' means within the context of the flood account.
Rich Deem of godandscience.org (this Discussion Board's parent site) has an excellent article titles "The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says it Must Be Local.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

The real issue here is not what Scripture actually says, rather it is the set of presuppositions that people bring to what Scripture actually says.
One of the key points that Rich makes in his article is...
"The 'whole earth' (kol erets) usually refers to local geography"

Once we understand what "kol erets" means within the context of the flood account, alleged problems with a local flood disappear.
Try this and you'll see what I mean... when you read through the flood account substitute the word "earth" for "land of Mesopotamia".
The land that was covered with water was the 'land' of Mesopotamia.
The people that were destroyed were all the people of the land of Mesopotamia
The animals that were destroyed were all the animals of the land of Mesopotamia

Moses' use of the word "erets" (land) to refer to the land of Mesopotamia is very similar to how Luke and Paul use the word "world" to refer to the known Roman world.

In Christ

PaulSacramento wrote:That is all well and good and kind of "old news" for Rick and I ( we both believe the flood to be local if I recall correctly) BUT that doesn't address the core of Rick's issue:
All humans sin so why would God only kill some?

DBowling wrote:First post by a new poster.

Quick bit of background.
I am a progressive creationist who has been a fan of Hugh Ross for years. I also find myself going to and recommending GodandScience.org on a regular basis.

I'm pretty much in sync with Ross on time and cosmology, but I've always struggled a bit with his position on anthropology, particularly the date of the Historic Adam.
So a few months ago I decided to deep dive the topic... focusing on two topics, anthropology in general, and the history of the Levant and ancient Mesopotamia.

In my studies I have come to three conclusions which in turn have led me to a fourth conclusion that to be honest I am struggling with. So I want to share where I am and get some additional perspective from some fellow progressive creationists.
1. Conclusion 1 - Using internal evidence from Scripture alone, the events of Genesis 2-4 take place in the 4000 - 6000 BC time frame.
2. Conclusion 2 - Using the archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia, the events described in Genesis 2-4 take place during the Neolithic era and therefore would have to occur sometime after 10,000 BC. In this case the archaeological evidence from Mesopotamia and the internal Scriptural evidence both point to a time frame for the historic Adam and Eve between 10,0000 and 5,000 BC.
3. Conclusion 3 - Human Beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) had populated the world prior to 10,000 BC. In the case of the Americas the land bridge to North America was gone around 20,000 BC.

Conclusion 4
If the historic Adam lived in Mesopotamia sometime between 10,000 and 5,000 BC
and
If Humans were in the Americas, Australia, Europe, and Asia long before 10,000 BC
Then the Adam of Genesis 2-3 could not be the progenitor of all humans... which causes all kinds of problems for the Augustinian view of The Fall of Man and Original Sin... and I'm a huge fan of Augustine.

Apparently the theistic evolutionists are also struggling with similar issues involving The Fall and Original Sin.
But Behe has convinced me that you can't get there from here using using mutation and Natural Selection alone, so even though I have some similar issues as the theistic evolutionists, my premises as a progressive creationst are very different.

So that's my dilemma...
I have been dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusion that the Historic Adam of Neolithic Mesopotamia could not have been the progenitor of all humans.
So, please feel free to let me know which of my conclusions listed above you believe to be incorrect.

Thanks

In Christ,
Dave

Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be taken literally?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be taken literally?

The issue with that is that all through the bible the story and the people ARE taken as literal.

That said, as some writers have pointed out, even if the story is not to be a literal and concrete telling of what happened, but allegory or more correctly as a representation of humanity as a whole, no doctrine is truly effected.
Some will argue that if Adam was not a real person then Paul's statement of sin and death coming into the world via one man and the world being saved by one man ( Christ), loses it significance.
While I personally think Adam and Eve were real I do NOT believe that if they weren't but simply representatives that Christ's saving grace is somehow nullified.

stuartcr wrote:
Perhaps the story of Adam and Eve was never meant to be taken literally?

It All Starts From Adam

The question we’re left with is, how long ago did the Big Bang creation occur? Was it, as the Bible might imply, fewer than 6,000 years, or was it the 14 billions of years that are accepted by the scientific community? The first thing we have to understand is the origin of the biblical calendar.

The biblical calendar age of the universe is calculated by adding up the generations since Adam. This reaches a number slightly under 6000 years. Additionally, there are six days (actually the biblical text gives 5 and a half days) from the creation of the universe to the creation of the first human, that is the first being with the soul of a human (not the first hominid, a being with human shape and intelligence, but lacking the soul of humanity, the neshama). We have a calendar that begins with Adam. The six pre-Adam days are separate from this. The Bible has two calendars, two clocks. This is no modern rationalization. The Talmud already discussed this 1600 years ago.

The reason the six pre-Adam days (Genesis 1:1 – 27) were taken out of the calendar is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. There the passage of each day is described as “There was evening and morning” with no relationship to human time. Once we come to the progeny of Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having Seth. Seth lives 105 years before having Enosh, etc. (Genesis chapter 5). From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human-based, earth -based. But prior to that time, it’s an abstract concept: “Evening and morning.” It’s as if the Bible is looking at those events of Genesis One from a viewpoint other than the earth, a cosmic view of time. What might be the Biblical perception of the timing of those events prior to Adam relative to our earth-based measurements?

EssentialSacrifice wrote:If you like 5000-6000 years ago, you'll probably like this....