Evidence for God from Science

swordfish7 wrote:Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

This verse supports both a supernatural creation and a worldwide flood - not a localized flood like some advocate. This would support YEC that typically doesn't believe in a natural creation but a creation coming from the very lips of God.

RickD wrote:
swordfish wrote:
RickD,you seem to be saying dogmatic things.

Like what?

Swordfish wrote:
You assume the worst in YECs and accuse me of creating straw men! You treat me as ignorant when I have been looking at the topic for 40 years where I have a higher degree in the sciences

You did post straw man arguments. You conflated a belief of millions of years, with belief in evolution. When not all of us who believe in millions of years, believe in evolution.

You conflated a belief in evolution, with naturalism. When not all who believe in evolution believe in naturalism. You made up false arguments(straw man) and argued against the false arguments, instead of arguing against what people here actually believe. And that's either out of ignorance on your part, or dishonesty.

RickD wrote:
Why are you so against me?

I'm not against you. I'm tired of YECs misrepresenting what others believe, and then arguing against that misrepresentation.

Swordfish wrote:
I make my points from 40 years of experience. Even at one time I was an OEC. Could it be that you are blind to the bias because you recently left YEC? You feel betrayed by YEC? Possibly you have not looked at it as objectively as you should have.

Your experience is irrelevant when your arguments are misrepresentations.
Either you argue against what people actually believe, or stop arguing. Misrepresenting others will not be tolerated here. Period.

RickD wrote:
I do think God is very capable to make the first three days in three 24 hour days, with or without the sun. The fact that the writer talks about day and night seems to me to emphasize the point of 24 hour days.

So, there's day and night without the very thing that causes day and night on the earth?

Swordfish wrote:
The day and night are used to show it was a 24 hour time period. Why would the writer use day(morning) and night if he meant it figuratively?

One reason would be to show a beginning and ending of the creation day. However long the day was.

RickD wrote:
I would say the sun was made on the fourth day but it could have been the first.

You sure about that? Does your "literal" reading of scripture allow that?

Swordfish wrote:
Why do you have to treat me with condensation? Can you treat me with respect as a person with my own perspective and not some mindless programmed YEC. This attitude was what I was referring to in my original post. The OEC picks up the same condensation that the evolutionist has for YEC - that we are ignorant and mindless concerning science and your case think I am ignorant of scripture.

The question was straightforward with no condescension intended. I don't assume you are ignorant of scripture. I can only respond to what you post. Please stop misrepresenting beliefs of those who you disagree with. A literal, concrete reading of scripture says that the sun was created on the 4th day. I was merely asking if you would allow for a less concrete interpretation, which would allow for the sun being created on or before the first day.

RickD wrote:
I'll ask you the same question I asked crochet:

Read Genesis 2:4:
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Taken literally and concretely, as you take the other parts of Genesis, according to this verse, how long did it take for God to create heaven and earth?

Swordfish wrote:
We read the bible like any other book - the literal parts should be taken literally and the figurative parts figuratively! Now this is the transition verse that moves from the 7 days of creation to the story of man and the fall. We sometimes speak like this, "I remember the day when I was the quarterback making all the touch downs!" In both cases, are they taking about a specific day or a group of days in general? I again point out the emphasis on the day being 24 hours by referencing the "morning and evening".

So who decides that when there's a morning and evening, yom means a 24 hour day? And when there's no morning and evening, yom means something else?
Are you the final authority? Day means ordinary day doesn't it?

swordfish7 wrote:This verse supports both a supernatural creation and a worldwide flood - not a localized flood like some advocate. This would support YEC that typically doesn't believe in a natural creation but a creation coming from the very lips of God.

So tell us when in Noah's flood were the heavens and earth flooded,the world at that time was destroyed and the earth was formed out of waters,because that is exactly what it describes. It is not and cannot be talking about the global flood in Noah's day based on what the text says. It is instead poiting us to Genesis 1 where in Genesis 1:2 the heavens and earth are flooded and the earth is formed out of waters as we read through Genesis 1. It is not talking about Noah's flood but a different flood we call Lucifer's flood.The earth is in waters in Genesis 1:2 because the Spirit of God hovers over these waters the earth is in,then he removes the waters off of the earth and forms the earth out of the waters the earth is in. The earth is not in waters in Noah's world wide global flood and the world at that time was not destroyed God kept it going so that Jesus could be born and the earth was not formed out of the global flood of Noah's flood.

RickD wrote: You did post straw man arguments. You conflated a belief of millions of years, with belief in evolution. When not all of us who believe in millions of years, believe in evolution.

You conflated a belief in evolution, with naturalism. When not all who believe in evolution believe in naturalism. You made up false arguments(straw man) and argued against the false arguments, instead of arguing against what people here actually believe. And that's either out of ignorance on your part, or dishonesty.

Are you just playing games with me? The bottom line reads "St. Richard the Sarcastic; the Patron Saint of Irony". So you through up a straw man to say that I am using straw men! Is that not great irony? Should I even play your games?

swordfish7 wrote:

RickD wrote: You did post straw man arguments. You conflated a belief of millions of years, with belief in evolution. When not all of us who believe in millions of years, believe in evolution.

You conflated a belief in evolution, with naturalism. When not all who believe in evolution believe in naturalism. You made up false arguments(straw man) and argued against the false arguments, instead of arguing against what people here actually believe. And that's either out of ignorance on your part, or dishonesty.

Are you just playing games with me? The bottom line reads "St. Richard the Sarcastic; the Patron Saint of Irony". So you through up a straw man to say that I am using straw men! Is that not great irony? Should I even play your games?

I'm not playing games. Please stop misrepresenting what others believe. And please stop conflating things like millions of years/evolution, and evolution/naturalism.

It will not be tolerated on this forum.

Why do we tend to use animal terms when describing non Homo Sapien humans? I'd say they knew each other or gave in marriage. My interpretation agrees with this, as they were both fully human.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

Swordfish: I don't think it is a big deal either way - 4th day or first day. I think there needs to be a little more charity in these discussions on OEC and YEC. Good arguments can be put up for both sides. I think we need to work together examining both science and scripture. We each need to advance our scientific theories using science and let the chips fall where they fall. Also, the Intelligent design advocated by Dempski should be advanced as a tool challenging naturalism and evolution. If we work together, showing respect for each theory, I think God will bless us more.

OK, Swordfish, fine - that's all good. So, then why is ANYONE obsessed with arguing over this issue? Does anyone truly think they are going to be able to match up what man can deduce about Creation as to the details of how God actually did it? That's not going to happen! The FAR bigger issue is what you touch upon in your next to last sentence - that is, that there has to be a Creator to explain what exists. And so what, of all supposed communications from whatever other considered gods has any credibility? All of the Pantheistic religions - we and the universe are all parts of god - or collective of gods. But we can't create ourselves. The universe couldn't. OK, so then there's a wide variety of mysticism that no one can dissect or show credibility for. And then there are the cults who take the Bible and add to it. ONLY the Bible shows a track record of history and fulfilled prophecy that shows any credibility. And THAT is all that should truly matter. As God is an eternal being, as time is but his tool, the what, pray tell, is the big honking deal over the length of time He created? And the challenges for YEC to link the Creation with the known evidences are enormous - and will never be credible to most Christians, much less to most unbelievers. So, why go there? So, what the argument entails is over an asserted period of roughly 14 billion years. But God is eternal - what is that to Him? And let's not forget that He spoke the Creation into being - prove THAT to unbelievers. What people must become convinced of first is that there HAS to be a God, that's of first importance, should be the focus with such persons.

What NOT important is all this silly YEC vs. OEC stuff. Those new to this forum never seem to realize that this issue has been argued upon every possible point. It's redundant and divisive. But some seem to feel the need to press it. WHY???!!! What really matters, as to HOW LONG whatever occurred as God created - or how LONG that took? What really matters to us occurred before God began interacting with Adam? Not much. What has God communicated to us? THESE things are what really matter. But people would rather get all cranked up and dogmatic over the whole OEC vs. YEC circus sideshow. And for those here, certainly all of the mods lean toward an OEC view - but you rarely see us comment upon it much unless someone makes it a big issue, or a litmus test for how seriously one takes Scripture - ALL of the mods here take it VERY seriously. The other thing you'll see some of us engage is whenever someone tries to make the case that belief in OEC is necessarily the same as being supportive of evolution - and worse, of GODLESS evolution. But this is a false statement, typically of those here with an agenda. Even those Christians here believing in some aspects of whatever version of evolution, they nonetheless believe that was God's method of creating. Some believe in evolution, but not that man evolved. So, there's a wide variety of views.

The OEC vs. YEC interpretations are interesting to ponder - but that is where it should end. Other issue, people thinking that if they could only get people to believe that science supports their view of this issue will bring people to Christ - how delusional! I've seen no one come to Christ because they became convinced of a YEC or OEC view that involved God the Creator. But many do come to belief that began with the realization that the Creation is inexplicable without a Creator - which sets them upon a search for God, and eventually, an examination of Scripture. So, as this forum is a ministry, there are much bigger "fish to fry" - as in, this issue should be rather low on the list of importance of mature Christians. Why make is a big issue? Why so high on one's list of issues? People come on, their a YEC or whatever, they see that we the forum is "God and SCIENCE," and first thing, they start up right away with dogmatic assertions about their Creation views of time. Silly. What a waste of time!

But as to the the thread's title question about neanderthals and humans mating:

If so, maybe there were hot neanderthal chicks? The bar in some neighborhood cave was too dark one night, near closing time? What?

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

Philip wrote:But as to the the thread's title question about neanderthals and humans mating:

If so, maybe there were hot neanderthal chicks? The bar in some neighborhood cave was too dark one night, near closing time? What?

If I knew how I'd post a picture of that old cartoon character Caveman.

Nah, they all looked like Fred and Wilma Flintstone

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

And this folks, is why nobody believes in the Gap Theory.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

I don't mind getting into the Hebrew and Greek,however it is really not as necessary as you may think. We have the bible translated into English,our language and it is God's word to English speaking people. But we have problems reading it in English our own language and ignore or don't understand other parts of the bible. I could give example. Like for instance 2nd Peter 3:5-7. We ignore that this text is describing a flood of the heavens and earth that caused the world at that time to be destroyed and that the earth was formed out of these waters.

We make Noah"s flood fit into it, eventhough only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood,not the heavens and earth,and that this world was not destroyed in Noah's flood,but also the earth was not formed out of waters in Noah's flood. It was formed out of waters because of Genesis 1:2. but we ignore this and claim it is talking about Noah's flood. We must ignore what the text says and describes and ignore the facts about Noah's flood,and yet it has been done by people who claim to be bible experts. This is just one example.

Just wondering, how could the heavens be flooded? Outer space can't be flooded, well then again this is God we're talking about.

It is simply what the bible tells us.It might be hard to believe the heavens and earth were flooded but the greek word heavens in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 means cosmos and then we see the word earth also.So we have to conclude the cosmos(heavens)and the earth was flooded which caused the former world to perish.We also can see the earth is flooded in Genesis 1:2 and this is why on the second day God removes these waters and divides them off of the earth.The earth was formed out of these waters also.So if we blend 2nd Peter 3:3-7 into it? It means both the heavens and earth were flooded.This did not happen in Noah's flood by the way,only the earth was flooded so this flood was much,much worse than Noah's flood. I don't have it anymore but I used to have a link that shows that aging dying stars produce water.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/sofia-pinp ... young-star this talks about one star that emits water vapor, however it is a young star. When exactly did this event happen (like in billions or millions of years), and why wasn't this mentioned in Genesis?