Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is just one piece of the puzzle so to speak.I already know where the 4000 year dating comes from and it has to do with global warming science and a world wide drought,this tells me it is about population reduction.

I dare say it does. However, that is not what the article you mention says, which is specifically that there was an increase in population, couple to a decrease in male genetic diversity.

Which is what bottlenecks mean,a reduction in the population.

Not in this case, no.

They have because of this overlooked that the evidence tells of two different worlds with a gap in between them which is why we see different kinds of life for both worlds ...

If this means anything, then it is incorrect.

But all things have not gone on continually for billions of years like scientists think and they only think it has because of evolution.The evidence does not tell us all things have gone on continually for billions of years,instead it tells us we once had very different kinds of life in the former world until it died and the former world perished,then a gap and then this world with different kinds of life in it.

No. The evidence is unequivocally in favour of continuous evolution.

By looking at a dinosaur for example it does not tell you it evolved into a bird,it tells you this kind of life once lived in a much different world than this world we now live in.

No, again. Looking at a dinosaur does not tell you that it evolved into a bird, since it predates birds, but looking at a bird most certainly tells you that it evolved from a dinosaur.

It comes down to how we interpret the evidence.You're looking at it from a different perspective.

Philip wrote: The reality is, you either believe Scripture is true - which means means it is also HISTORICALLY true as well - or you don't.

Hugh: No. That is a false dichotomy, which if maintained leads to continuous reductio ab absurdam conclusions which severely weaken the authority of scripture without contributing to the understanding of science at all.

Hugh, where and when Scripture is making a historical statement of actual events, and if Scripture is God's word, then those words must be true. And whether we UNDERSTAND God's word (properly, as to whether meant to be historical, scientific, symbolic, poetry, etc.) or not - it is STILL unquestionably true. Otherwise, you are rejecting what God says is true. There not Scriptural truth and then some other kind. Now, it depends upon what Scripture is referencing. But the story of the ark - if it's God-given - and Jesus confirms it, and yet you deny it - well, you're rejecting God's word given through Moses and that is confirmed by Jesus. And it is given as straight-forward, historical fact of real persons and real events. So, you either believe it or not. That doesn't mean the nuances of how it played out are all correctly understood. But it does mean that actual man named Noah built an Ark and loaded it with gathered species, the world/region, whatever - however far the scale, and at whatever time. If you don't believe what is written, you have a problem with Scripture as either being God's word and understandable in what it plainly says. And that is a view that Scripture is untrustworthy. If Scripture is God's word, how can it not be trusted?

It seems to me that every time you see something that is SCIENTIFICALLY dubious or unsubstantiated, you dismiss it possibly being historically true? You would appear to think 1) we can figure out complex, ancient things just from science alone, and 2) that the denial that the miraculous is done across Scripture - sometimes on a very large scale. When Scripture says an ancient dead rabbi was actually God in the flesh and that you MUST believe He was and is God, that He lived as a man and was crucified, Resurrected to life, etc. - why believe such a fantastical thing? Why MUST we believe that to be saved? Is hell merely symbolic? Heaven? These are not scientifically discernible things. You have FAR too much faith in science and your own rationalism. You seem to claim Scripture is true but that it can't possibly mean what it actually says. Was it written for our understanding or not? Yes, it contains mysteries and the miraculous - which we should expect from a God whom was capable of creating a universe from nothing.



"... but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;"

Philip wrote:

Philip wrote: The reality is, you either believe Scripture is true - which means means it is also HISTORICALLY true as well - or you don't.

Hugh: No. That is a false dichotomy, which if maintained leads to continuous reductio ab absurdam conclusions which severely weaken the authority of scripture without contributing to the understanding of science at all.

Hugh, where and when Scripture is making a historical statement of actual events, and if Scripture is God's word, then those words must be true.

Quite so. But what about this?

The question needs to be: Is the passage meant to be factual/historical, scientific, or symbolic, allegorical, metaphorical - or some combination - and do we have an accurate understanding it of its intentions and its historical/cultural/religious/spiritual /specific event or subject's context?

Have you decided that your understanding of the story of Noah's ark is accurate? And mine is inaccurate? If so, I beg to differ, and inquire politely why your interpretation is better than mine.

And whether we UNDERSTAND God's word (properly, as to whether meant to be historical, scientific, symbolic, poetry, etc.) or not - it is STILL unquestionably true. Otherwise, you are rejecting what God says is true. There not Scriptural truth and then some other kind. Now, it depends upon what Scripture is referencing. But the story of the ark - if it's God-given - and Jesus confirms it, and yet you deny it - well, you're rejecting God's word given through Moses and that is confirmed by Jesus.

Ah. The nub seems to be that you think Jesus said it was historically true, and therefore it must be. But of course that would be a great mistake. Jesus knew better than most the power and influence of a well-turned story, and there is no reason to suppose that his teaching about Noah depended any more on historical truth than his own parables. Furthermore, in the verse immediately before the mention of Noah we find Jesus specifically disassociating his human side from his divine side, in saying "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Some translations even add "not even the Son" or something similar to demonstrate this theology more clearly. As such, his pronouncements as a 1st century Jew do not necessarily reflect divine omnipotence.

And it is given as straight-forward, historical fact of real persons and real events.

So are most of the unhistorical stories.

So, you either believe it or not.

Yep.

But it does mean that actual man named Noah built an Ark and loaded it with gathered species, the world/region, whatever - however far the scale, and at whatever time.

Nope.

If you don't believe what is written, you have a problem with Scripture as either being God's word and understandable in what it plainly says.

No, I don't.

And that is a view that Scripture is untrustworthy. If Scripture is God's word, how can it not be trusted?

How indeed?

It seems to me that every time you see something that is SCIENTIFICALLY dubious or unsubstantiated, you dismiss it possibly being historically true?

No, no, you overreach yourself. Me? Dismiss something merely because it is dubious scientifically? Certainly not. Reject the likelihood of a literal reading when the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against it? That's more like it.

You would appear to think 1) we can figure out complex, ancient things just from science alone, and 2) that the denial that the miraculous is done across Scripture - sometimes on a very large scale. When Scripture says an ancient dead rabbi was actually God in the flesh and that you MUST believe He was and is God, that He lived as a man and was crucified, Resurrected to life, etc. - why believe such a fantastical thing? Why MUST we believe that to be saved? Is hell merely symbolic? Heaven? These are not scientifically discernible things. You have FAR too much faith in science and your own rationalism. You seem to claim Scripture is true but that it can't possibly mean what it actually says. Was it written for our understanding or not? Yes, it contains mysteries and the miraculous - which we should expect from a God whom was capable of creating a universe from nothing.

Alas, your understanding of what I believe is based on prejudice rather than reading what I say. I have too much faith in Science? Nonsense; I have exactly the right amount of faith in Science. No, the truth of Scripture does not rely on a literal interpretation of every story. Yes it was written for our understanding, but not as a straightforward history book.

"... but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;"

Name one. People occasionally use this quotation to justify their inability to maintain an unjustified position against rational refutation. I trust you are not doing the same.

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:Some thoughts on the Flood date after a couple of years deep-diving the topic.
An examination of Genesis 4 is what led me to depart from Hugh Ross (who I respect greatly) and discount any flood date that occurs prior to 10,000 BC.

According to Genesis 4, mankind was engaged in the following activities before the flood:
- building cities (Gen 4:17)
- dwelling in tents and domesticating livestock (Genesis 4:20)
- playing the lyre and pipe (Genesis 4:21)
- forging bronze and iron (Genesis 4:22)

Here is a list of some key human activities that first occur after the beginning of the Neolithic era which began around 10,000 BC
- 10,000-8,700 BC – Mesopotamia – Introduction of Agriculture
- 8,700-6,800 BC – Mesopotamia – Domestication of Animals
- 7,090 BC – Jarmo – One of the oldest agricultural communities in the world in Northern Iraq
- 5,600 BC – Black Sea Deluge
- 5,400 BC – Eridu founded – Oldest city in the world
- 4,500 BC – Uruk (Enoch) founded

When I compared the human behaviors in Genesis 4 with the above dates for key human developments, I became convinced that if the events of Genesis 4 did in fact occur before the flood, then the flood had to have occurred sometime after 10,000 BC at the very earliest, and most likely sometime after 5,000 BC.

Further comparisons of the Biblical record and Mesopotamian history appear to converge at a common date of around 3,000 BC for the flood.

The most significant problem I have with Hugh Ross's date for the flood is it is inconsistent with the Genesis 4 description of human activities that occurred prior to the flood.

In Christ

Thanks DBowling,

Since you are a fellow Day-Ager and someone who seems to have matured beyond RTB, I'd be interested to know if you have additional thoughts in regard to how all of humanity could have been involved in the flood given we appear to have spread out much earlier in time than 10,000 years (as Hugh has correctly pointed out here).

I have some thoughts... and it took me a while to get here, but there is no time since 10,000 years ago (the earliest date possible per Genesis 4) that all humanity was in a single place to be affected by a local flood.
Since I believe the Scriptural argument for a local flood is very solid (See Rich Deem's article) then the next thing to investigate is whether or not Scripture claims that all humanity was destroyed in the flood.

I have summarized my conclusions on that particular topic in this post in the "Local flood, not all humanity killed?" thread that Rick started...
Here is a link to my first post in that thread
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 66#p203068

Nonetheless we have over 300 cultures around the world who report major floods with various similarities. Some argue this away by saying floods are common, but so too are fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions; the similar elements in the flood stories with often supernatural elements, and the number, persuade me a real flood disaster affecting a lot of humanity altogether at some point in time did occur.

There are similarities and many differences in the flood stories from around the globe. As the last ice age ended there were many significant flood events all over the globe, so I don't think we can necessarily group together all these flood stories and assume they are all referring to the same flood event. There are enough differences in many of these stories to indicate that these flood stories are referring to local floods that occurred all over the globe.

These days I describe myself as Old Earth and Young Adam
In a nutshell, my current position is:
- The Genesis 1:26-27 account of the creation of mankind occurred in Africa somewhere around 200,000 (Edit I mistakenly put 100,000 in my original post) years ago when modern humans first appeared
- In Genesis 2 God chooses Adam and Eve to begin the line of covenant people (sons of God) that God would use to bring his truth to all humanity. I believe Adam and Eve lived in upper Mesopotamia somewhere in the 5,000 - 6,000 BC timeframe.
- In Genesis 6 God's covenant people intermarry with and are corrupted by the indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and God passes judgment on the land of Mesopotamia and his covenant people (the family line of Adam). Noah and his family are the only faithful remnant of God's covenant people (Adam's family line) to survive the flood.
I am convinced that the Biblical record and Mesopotamian history converge at an approximate date of 3,000 BC for Noah's Flood.

In Christ

DBowling wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

DBowling wrote:Some thoughts on the Flood date after a couple of years deep-diving the topic.
An examination of Genesis 4 is what led me to depart from Hugh Ross (who I respect greatly) and discount any flood date that occurs prior to 10,000 BC.

According to Genesis 4, mankind was engaged in the following activities before the flood:
- building cities (Gen 4:17)
- dwelling in tents and domesticating livestock (Genesis 4:20)
- playing the lyre and pipe (Genesis 4:21)
- forging bronze and iron (Genesis 4:22)

Here is a list of some key human activities that first occur after the beginning of the Neolithic era which began around 10,000 BC
- 10,000-8,700 BC – Mesopotamia – Introduction of Agriculture
- 8,700-6,800 BC – Mesopotamia – Domestication of Animals
- 7,090 BC – Jarmo – One of the oldest agricultural communities in the world in Northern Iraq
- 5,600 BC – Black Sea Deluge
- 5,400 BC – Eridu founded – Oldest city in the world
- 4,500 BC – Uruk (Enoch) founded

When I compared the human behaviors in Genesis 4 with the above dates for key human developments, I became convinced that if the events of Genesis 4 did in fact occur before the flood, then the flood had to have occurred sometime after 10,000 BC at the very earliest, and most likely sometime after 5,000 BC.

Further comparisons of the Biblical record and Mesopotamian history appear to converge at a common date of around 3,000 BC for the flood.

The most significant problem I have with Hugh Ross's date for the flood is it is inconsistent with the Genesis 4 description of human activities that occurred prior to the flood.

In Christ

Thanks DBowling,

Since you are a fellow Day-Ager and someone who seems to have matured beyond RTB, I'd be interested to know if you have additional thoughts in regard to how all of humanity could have been involved in the flood given we appear to have spread out much earlier in time than 10,000 years (as Hugh has correctly pointed out here).

I have some thoughts... and it took me a while to get here, but there is no time since 10,000 years ago (the earliest date possible per Genesis 4) that all humanity was is a single place to be affected by a local flood.
Since I believe the Scriptural argument for a local flood is very solid (See Rich Deem's article) then the next thing to investigate is whether or not Scripture claims that all humanity was destroyed in the flood.

I have summarized my conclusions on that particular topic in this post in the "Local flood, not all humanity killed?" thread that Rick started...
Here is a link to my first post in that thread
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 66#p203068

Nonetheless we have over 300 cultures around the world who report major floods with various similarities. Some argue this away by saying floods are common, but so too are fires, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions; the similar elements in the flood stories with often supernatural elements, and the number, persuade me a real flood disaster affecting a lot of humanity altogether at some point in time did occur.

There are similarities and many differences in the flood stories from around the globe. As the last ice age ended there were many significant flood events all over the globe, so I don't think we can necessarily group together all these flood stories and assume they are all referring to the same flood event. There are enough differences in many of these stories to indicate that these flood stories are referring to local floods that occurred all over the globe.

We see this reference to 300, or whatever number du jour, of nearly identical stories from around the world, tossed in pretty often.

I doubt anyone here has read all of those stories, whatever number it is, and then systematically seen where they were similar or different.

The challenge to address this 300 stories claim is ignored because the claim is so unapproachable, for just that reason. Its a huge project. None of us know the topic. Perhaps a serious scholar of comparative mythology could help out.

IF tho, the prevalence of certain themes in myth from around the world
is to be used as a standard by which to determine what is real, then we may have to give serious consideration to mermaids. And some few other things, like astrology, animal / person hybrids, invincible warriors, god-kings who promise to return after they die, and so on.

At best, the bible flood story has anecdotal evidence, and you might make a case for other flood myths being of some help, the the differences might make them more a liability than asset. Why for example might the Bantu story be wrong, but the Hebrew story is the right version?

Well, some archaeology / geology, a bit of genetics, things like that would
help-if they did. They dont.

Unless someone knows something they should tell us?

crochet1949 wrote:Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I, Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die"
That sounds very specific.
Chapter 7: 18 "The waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed 15 cubits upward, and the mountains were covered."
That sounds a bit 'world-wide' doesn't it? How high is 15 cubits? Mountains being Covered with water.

I Will look up 'water canopy' -- find out where I got that from.

I'm going to interrupt 'conversation' once more by asking How High IS 15 cubits. Mountains being covered with water.
No one has answered That question -- How High Is 15 cubits.

crochet1949 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Genesis 6:17 "And behold, I, Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die"
That sounds very specific.
Chapter 7: 18 "The waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed 15 cubits upward, and the mountains were covered."
That sounds a bit 'world-wide' doesn't it? How high is 15 cubits? Mountains being Covered with water.

I Will look up 'water canopy' -- find out where I got that from.

I'm going to interrupt 'conversation' once more by asking How High IS 15 cubits. Mountains being covered with water.
No one has answered That question -- How High Is 15 cubits.

I think it's about 20-25 feet.

On the way home from work yesterday, I heard a commercial for the Ark Encounter. Ken Ham was on the radio saying it's going to open July 7.

I wonder if he got tax money to pay for the commercials.

RickD
Thank you -- you Do see the relevance of my comment? The waters prevailed 20 - 25 feet upward and covered the mountains. Which means the flood waters would have spread very quickly to surrounding areas. Which means the flood would not necessarily have been Local. It was much more wide-spread.

A cubit was the length of a man's forearm and it usually thought of as about 45cm. 15 cubits is about 7 metres. How high is a small mountain? Say 1000 metres? A flood 1000metres deep would flood the entire United States up to the western borders of Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Texas. Mount Ararat is 5000 metres high.

crochet1949 wrote:RickD
Thank you -- you Do see the relevance of my comment? The waters prevailed 20 - 25 feet upward and covered the mountains. Which means the flood waters would have spread very quickly to surrounding areas. Which means the flood would not necessarily have been Local. It was much more wide-spread.

No. I have no idea why THAT would lead you to believe the flood was global.

hughfarey wrote:A cubit was the length of a man's forearm and it usually thought of as about 45cm. 15 cubits is about 7 metres. How high is a small mountain? Say 1000 metres? A flood 1000metres deep would flood the entire United States up to the western borders of Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Texas. Mount Ararat is 5000 metres high.

Sounds like you are speculating about the heighth of the small mountain? Mt. Ararat Then or Now?

But wait...

According to YEC, there were no mountains until the global flood. The flood is what created the mountains.

RickD wrote:But wait...

According to YEC, there were no mountains until the global flood. The flood is what created the mountains.

You guys make this so hard for unbelievers, how are we to know what to disbelieve.

Audie! You don't DISbelieve. You just LACK belief. You know this.