Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:I was just thinking about how, after so much time, it never ceases to amaze me as to how so many Christians remain ignorant of the assertions and beliefs inherent in Progressive Creation, and other related nuances of beliefs related to it. This post is not to argue the merits of the position, but to mostly to comment upon the lack of knowledge, of most people - Christian or not, and media - concerning Progressive Creationism (PC).

First, there is an astounding lack of knowledge about PC in the church. One would sometimes think that Christians think they ONLY have a choice to believe between a literalistic understanding of the Creation texts and 24-hour Creation days, and either evolution - as if evolution has anything to say about what came 11+ billion years before, that it would have been entirely dependent upon. Now, many Christians don't believe in the literalism of the time of those "days," but they are woefully ignorant of the assertions of Progressive Creationism.

The other thing that I see so much of is that so many Christians believe that Progressive Creationism somehow supports pure naturalism/unguided processes - evolution being the primary one - as to how life came to be. And, no doubt, various YECs have asserted that PC beliefs are anti-Scriptural - which we all SHOULD know are false.

But Christians (and others) also fail to understand that things DID evolve, yet they are ignorant of the differences between things evolving within locked, hard parameters, as to ONLY what changes are possible within a given species, and with macroevolution beliefs of simple cells (SOMEHOW coming alive WITHOUT a God) evolving to the multitude of species that now exist. And, of course, most Christians are totally ignorant of some Christians' beliefs that evolution was God's process of diversifying life, and of the various beliefs that entails. For instance, some Christians believe that the animals evolved, but that Adam and Eve did not come from them. Some do believe humanity IS a result of evolution, but that God changed the first two former "animals/hominids or whatever" into the first humans. Obviously many Christians believe that ALL life and humans are here via evolution - which, of course, has theological challenges.

And REALLY obscure, amongst Christians, is a lack of knowledge about the important differences and apparent contradictions that may well suggest that Genesis 2 is not merely picking up the story of the initial Creation and the animal kingdoms found in Genesis 1, but that it may be moving to a different setting (The Garden, which is only a PART of Eden, and of which Edens events are separate from all that is going on outside of it) and NEW human creations (Adam and Eve!). This difference between the two Creation accounts MIGHT mean that God created all other species FIRST, and subsequently man, but that Adam and Eve were created separately, and as God's/Christ's lineage for all Believers of all time. And that this separate and much later creation of Adam and Eve may have been far, FAR after the first men were already created. Of course, there are beliefs that differ about whether those preceding humans were created via evolution or PC. Point is, this belief that Genesis 1 and 2 may not be speaking to the very same things is almost totally unknown or discussed amongst Christians.

Lastly, there is the popular media - as they love to portray Christians as ignorant and superstitious - no matter their Creation beliefs. But popular media NEVER discusses the fact that millions of Christians don't hold to YEC literalism, that they are not ANTI-scientific, and that they accept the vast antiquity of the earth and universe - per the consensus of science. Of course, media types, like many others, ONLY discuss knowledge common to their peers - never truly researching or familiarizing themselves with other views. And, of course, the editors control the narrative. And editors typically print or publish views that the media owners desire them to. No one likes to go against the grain, per what they put out there.

Here's an overview of Progressive Creationism: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.html

Lets look at the choices- "secular" ToE; YEC, OEC, PC and Gap. Any others?

Yec and Gap are readily disproved; the ancient polar ice alone does that.

Why do you favor PC over OEC?

And what is the problem with God being entirely capable-and inclined-to
make a universe subtle enough that life can and does emerge and evolve, with no further prodding?

Audie,

PC(Progressive Creationism) is a kind of OEC(old earth creationism).

Well, look who did not put much thought into how she askrd a question.

"PC over some other iteration of OEC"

Audie: But why do "Adam and Eve" HAVE to be any more real than the flood? If there was not
really-really a talking snake thenJesus was a liar and all is but a bitter mockery?

Philip wrote:

Audie: But why do "Adam and Eve" HAVE to be any more real than the flood? If there was not
really-really a talking snake thenJesus was a liar and all is but a bitter mockery?

Audie, Jesus believed and taught that the entirety of the Old Testament was Scripture, and that it ALL pointed to Him.

He confirmed the flood story in Matthew 24:37–39

JESUS is the Creator of all that exists! (John 1)

The genealogy in Luke establishes key persons in the line of Jesus, who is linked to Adam - a REAL person. (Luke 3:23-28)

He referred to the entire Old Testament in mentioning all the prophets from Abel (from Genesis, the first book and first martyr) to Zechariah (Chronicles, the last book, and the last martyr), in Matthew 23:35.

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus confirms the entirety of the Old Testament - not only as God's word, but that HE actually came to fulfill the prophecies in it.

The snake in Genesis isn't just a talking snake, but is a physical manifestation of Satan - who is otherwise a supremely evil spiritual being.

As Jesus also taught He is also God, (Referred to as "The Word" that BECAME flesh (Jesus came into the world, while still fully God, in a baby's form).

Scripture teaches God is perfect and sinless. IF ANY untruth could be shown or proven about Him, it would reveal Him to be lying and a sinner (an impossibility).

Philip wrote:

Audie: But why do "Adam and Eve" HAVE to be any more real than the flood? If there was not
really-really a talking snake thenJesus was a liar and all is but a bitter mockery?

Audie, Jesus believed and taught that the entirety of the Old Testament is Scripture, and that it ALL points to Him.

Of course, anyone could say that. Or claim he said it.

The flood he is said to have confirmed needn't have been global.

Scripture teaches God is perfect and sinless. IF ANY untruth could be shown or proven about Him, it would reveal Him to be lying and a sinner (an impossibility)

A lot of people seem to take it as meaning that their own reading of scrip
is infallibly true.

You know?

Here is a binary either / for for you.

EITHER the bible contains untruth, OR the interpretation that the OT speaks of a literal world wide flood is untrue.

The only way a person can hold on to "world wide flood" with even a vestige of integrity is to go "embedded age", with God cleaning up the mess and otherwise tampering with the evidence.

What that view says of God, i will leave to others to work out.

Oh, side note-if something is approximately true, is it "true"?

Philip: Scripture teaches God is perfect and sinless. IF ANY untruth could be shown or proven about Him, it would reveal Him to be lying and a sinner (an impossibility)

Audie: A lot of people seem to take it as meaning that their own reading of scrip
is infallibly true.

You know?

Here is a binary either / for for you.

Audie: Oh, side note-if something is approximately true, is it "true"?

The flood he is said to have confirmed needn't have been global.

True, there is reasonable interpretations, SCRIPTURALLY, that the flood wasn't global.

And there is no reasonable interpretation of geological / biological data that
indicates a global flood, so that kinda triangulates it.

Philip: Scripture teaches God is perfect and sinless. IF ANY untruth could be shown or proven about Him, it would reveal Him to be lying and a sinner (an impossibility)

On the issue of Jesus being sinless, that one doesn't believe it is another matter. But this is not some obscure teaching or interpretation, as not only does the New Testament plainly and prolifically teach it, but also Jesus would not be God if He sinned. He also would not have met the requirement for a sinless sacrifice.

I am not concerned about whether he is said to have been sinless. My observation is that various people said various things about him, later.
Not all of it was accurate.

Truth isn't in DEGREES, or else it contains some percentage of untruth

"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

A person relates his account to the best of his ability, but cannot get it 100%;
so what do you call that?

Are approximations "true", and without "untruth"?

What falls under the heading of "untruth"? Details left out?
Shades of meaning? Tone of voice? An incorrect digit in the 10,000th decimal place?

It seems to me nothing in the real world that we actually deal with is "true".

Of course, we must completely and accurately know what is meant, concerning something that has been stated in Scripture, that we are evaluating, before we can correctly do so. Knocking over straw men, while perhaps impressive or self-satisfying, nonetheless proves absolutely nothing as it relates to proving some truth.

But of course

We have those who think they are graced buy God with infallible reading, and do accurately know what is meant. And some of them couldnt be more wrong if they tried.

Truth is NOT binary, as it either is or it isn't. It doesn't change per opinion, feelings, or correct understandings - truth simply IS true. Audie either exists or she does not.

Not sure what noun is binary, but then, "truth" is a bit abstract.

And of course, you cannot say it IS night or it IS day, at twilight.

Kurieuo wrote:I no longer accept the local flood idea, not for Biblical reasons which I think can be supported, but rather due to the diverse stories around the world in different cultures, talking of a major flooding event, often in their region.

These stories often also include fire falling from the skies. Of course "gods" and "spirits" are often added in, what tribes and cultures attempt to do when they can't explain quite unusual events, especially catastrophic ones.

What does seem to fit, is perhaps large meteorites or comet breaking apart. Hitting earth, they would have caused global flooding across continents worldwide, destroying a lot of humanity and life. The Burckle crator was perhaps one of these.

Further to this, such an event would have created many rainbow and lighting effects in the sky thereafter with the water blown in Earth's atmosphere for a number of weeks.

I wrote a post a few weeks back, I feel Masse's position does best fit such a scenario.

Kurieuo wrote:

Are they truly serious question, or would you play me the fool if I answered them? Sometimes I don't know with you.

Often enough, as you have seen all about, people play themselves for fools.

I'm only associating the Biblical flood and other flood stories around the world with an explanation that seems to tick the boxes

That is a valid approach. The refilling of the Black Sea Basin is also thought to tick a box or two. And of course, some signs of major flooding in the, yes, flood plain of the Tibris-Euyphrates.

Sometimes it's best to put down the Bible and explore options with an open mind based upon other sources of knowledge.

Absolutely. Tho I do think few Christians or other religious people will ever have much luck with that when it comes to what they take as important questions.

Similarly, sometimes I think it'd be best if you put aside your own ideas about the world, to read Scripture with an open mind laying aside your skepticism.

You dont know what I do or dont do of course, but that is changing the subject anyway.

I'm sure when we all die, and see what was actually the case (as I'm sure we all will), there will be a few surprises all round. For now we look through a glass dimly knowing only in part

I am sure that might be the case. It might also be that, you know, squashed-bug-on -the windshield, there really isnt any more to it.

NOW to my Q. There are a lot of themes that show up in mythology around the world. Mermaids, invincible warriors, saviours coming.

A thorough flood story investigation should properly include seeing how it
fits into any pattern, including a pattern of recurring themes concerning things like dragons and mermaids that we really can discount as ever having been real.

("playing themselves for fools" includes those who concoct that Adam and Eve etc consorted with dinosaurs, hence the dragon stories..)

As for the 40 days and nights, if impacts caused tsunamis, the 40 days of rain is not correct.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Black Sea lacks explanatory power as to how stories reached around other continents sharing similar yet also distinct aspects. Further, people could have just moved as the waters rose, according to the science behind such which has the Mediterranean sea leaking in.

Hardly calls for building an Ark, but you know, after a thousand years or so of people failing to find the Ark, the authors of the Black Sea idea were just trying to find a flood.

Doesn't really quite explain the myths, if much at all except that a large local area filled up with water where people may have settled.

A great many myths, and their recurring themes are explained not in terms of actual events, but something about the human psycho. A bit of "lateral thinking" you might explore.

As for myths, try not to be so black and white. Your scientific filter may be strangling you here i.e., seeing is believing, no offense intended. If flood myths share many common threads, it makes sense to believe truth exist behind the presentations. It's not necessarily a case of entirely false or entirely true, even with obvious mythical storytelling.

See the above. Strangling and all.

It makes sense to believe "truth' exists...?
Sure, it is good to investigate.

Not so good to force fit

And sometimes there is no "truth" in terms of an actual even or thing actually exists.

Where, after all, shall we seek the truth of mermaid stories or tales of the Seven Cities of Gold: mount yet more expeditions*, or, maybe investigate some other way?

But you bring up

not necessarily a case of entirely false or entirely true, even with obvious mythical storytelling.

which, however you parse it, comes to that the Bible contains error.

Re: 40 days and nights of rain, it'd cause more than tsunamis, also hurricanes and rain. Take a quick read of this for a general rundown of Masse's theory: [url]http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/di ... reat-flood

Square peg syndrome?

Re: again the 40 days and nights, try thinking more laterally.

The truth of falsity of the "flood' story is not about me or how I think.
But since you bring in my thinking process, is it not so that i am often
telling people here that there are more possibilities than the ones they entertain?

Do you even consider that the story is just a story, with no more basis than
the fanciful stories from Jason and the Argonauts?

The number 40 is regularly used in Hebraic stories. Could be literal could be figurative, that is, a form of Hebraic idiom (e.g., Moses lived 40 years in Egypt, 40 years in the desert, on Mt Sinai for 40 days and nights, spies sent out to investigate the promise land for 40 days, Jonah warning Ninevah for 40 days, etc). Take a read of [url]http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/mean ... le/40.html[/url

]


I am quite aware that in the Bible numbers are used for effect, for symbolic purposes rather than because they are correct. Ie, simply made up.

Philip: Scripture teaches God is perfect and sinless. IF ANY untruth could be shown or proven about Him, it would reveal Him to be lying and a sinner (an impossibility).

Truth isn't in DEGREES, or else it contains some percentage of untruth

Not to have you answering for Phil, but the flood story so obviously contains
only small elements of truth, if any, that something appears to be wrong here.

What do you think it is? Infinite regress on the matter of just what "truth" is?

*
“In a few days the Eldorado Expedition went into the patient wilderness, that closed upon it as the sea closes over a diver. Long afterwards the news came that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals. They, no doubt, like the rest of us, found what they deserved. I did not inquire.”

Audie wrote:
Do you feel that "PC" can legitimately based on scrpiture or science?

AreEl wrote:

Audie wrote:
Do you feel that "PC" can legitimately based on scrpiture or science?

No. Progressive Creation is just more religious crap.