Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:I had to type in /// Scientific Evidence for a World Wide Flood
Evidence for a Global Flood

Two very good articles.

I was asked for non-Biblical proof of a global flood. It's There. In plain secular English.

The link you posted does not work.

Crochet,

If this is the link you were trying to post:
https://www.sott.net/article/254614-Evi ... d-happened

You might want to reread it. It's an article about Noah's flood. But it's not about a worldwide flood. It's making a point about evidence for a large local flood, in the Mesopotamia region.

From the link:

"It probably was a bad day," Ballard said. "At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land, went under."

150,000 square km is not the entire earth.

Gosh! You pop off to make a cup of tea and when you come back there are three more pages of comments.

I was sorry earlier that 'a really intelligent person like [Crotchet]' (her words) did not know the difference between the universe and the solar system, and now find her saying things like 'if you don't believe the bible's description of a worldwide flood is correct, then you cannot believe in the crucifixion'. She also thinks that there is no need to interpret the bible because it is in 'plain English'. Curious. Until 1611 it said this: "dixitque Dominus ad eum ingredere tu et omnis domus tua arcam te enim vidi iustum coram me in generatione hac ex omnibus animantibus mundis tolle septena septena masculum et feminam de animantibus vero non mundis duo duo masculum et feminam sed et de volatilibus caeli septena septena masculum et feminam ut salvetur semen super faciem universae terrae adhuc enim et post dies septem ego pluam super terram quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus et delebo omnem substantiam quam feci de superficie terrae fecit ergo Noe omnia quae mandaverat ei Dominus" (verses 1 to 5). And when Jesus read it it probably looked more like this:
"וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָה֙ לְנֹ֔חַ בֹּֽא־אַתָּ֥ה וְכָל־בֵּיתְךָ֖ אֶל־הַתֵּבָ֑ה כִּֽי־אֹתְךָ֥ רָאִ֛יתִי צַדִּ֥יק לְפָנַ֖י בַּדּ֥וֹר הַזֶ׃
מִכֹּ֣ל׀ הַבְּהֵמָ֣ה הַטְּהוֹרָ֗ה תִּֽקַּח־לְךָ֛ שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וּמִן־הַבְּהֵמָ֡ה אֲ֠שֶׁר לֹ֣א טְהֹרָ֥ה הִ֛וא שְׁנַ֖יִם אִ֥ישׁ וְאִשְׁתּֽו׃
גַּ֣ם מֵע֧וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם שִׁבְעָ֥ה שִׁבְעָ֖ה זָכָ֣ר וּנְקֵבָ֑ה לְחַיּ֥וֹת זֶ֖רַע עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
כִּי֩ לְיָמִ֨ים ע֜וֹד שִׁבְעָ֗ה אָֽנֹכִי֙ מַמְטִ֣יר עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים י֔וֹם וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָ֑יְלָה וּמָחִ֗יתִי אֶֽת־כָּל־הַיְקוּם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֔יתִי מֵעַ֖ל פְּנֵ֥י הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃"
(also verses 1 to 5)

Sorry to labour the point but it is literally impossible to understand what the bible means without interpretation at many levels, translation being the first.

Back to understanding God through evolution, or just the laws of nature in general. When the great evolutionist JBS Haldane was asked what he had learned of God through his zoological studies, he is reputed to have said that God must have an inordinate fondness for beetles. I myself think that the fact that the laws of nature have resulted in creatures able to reflect on their situation, as we are doing now, even though they occupy, so far, a trivially tiny fraction of the universe, already helps us to ascribe some character to the rulebook. If we start to spread out across space as we once spread out across the world, our self-reflexion will expand and deepen.

Cladistics? How is Pakicetus a common ancestor to whales based on hearing and ear structures?
http://www.amnh.org/explore/news-blogs/ ... pakicetus/

RickD ---- there was a lot more in that article.

Evidence for a Global Flood. type it in.


hugh -- I know what you mean about being gone for just a bit and so much more has been added. Guess that's Good , though. Lots of thinking / sharing taking place.

Yes, I'm aware of the original languages of the Bible -- the translating into Latin and then to various languages that people spoke / speak. Actually the 1611 version was the 2nd one printed. The translation process -- very slow and painstaking for accuracy. And, no, not every word / symbol in Hebrew / Greek has a perfect translation into Latin and then to whatever language they want. No two alphabets are the same. But no one seems to question writings like Shakespear or others going from one language to another. But the Bible sure gets raked over the coals. That it couldn't Possibly be accurate.

I guess it's a matter of having Faith in the accuracy of it. Kind of like accepting the English translation of Shakespear or whatever literary masterpiece a person chooses.

Do you Also realize that the Bible is the most read/ popular book around. Lots of people have their own copy -- reading it is up to the individual.

By the way --- where Did those laws of physics Come From.
Apparently a solar system is a part of the universe. The Milky Way is part Of or a solar system? And the earth is just a tiniest dot In the Milky Way. That in itself is truly amazing.

crochet1949 wrote:RickD ---- there was a lot more in that article.

Evidence for a Global Flood. type it in.


hugh -- I know what you mean about being gone for just a bit and so much more has been added. Guess that's Good , though. Lots of thinking / sharing taking place.

Yes, I'm aware of the original languages of the Bible -- the translating into Latin and then to various languages that people spoke / speak. Actually the 1611 version was the 2nd one printed. The translation process -- very slow and painstaking for accuracy. And, no, not every word / symbol in Hebrew / Greek has a perfect translation into Latin and then to whatever language they want. No two alphabets are the same. But no one seems to question writings like Shakespear or others going from one language to another. But the Bible sure gets raked over the coals. That it couldn't Possibly be accurate.

I guess it's a matter of having Faith in the accuracy of it. Kind of like accepting the English translation of Shakespear or whatever literary masterpiece a person chooses.

Do you Also realize that the Bible is the most read/ popular book around. Lots of people have their own copy -- reading it is up to the individual.

By the way --- where Did those laws of physics Come From.
Apparently a solar system is a part of the universe. The Milky Way is part Of or a solar system? And the earth is just a tiniest dot In the Milky Way. That in itself is truly amazing.

Trooth for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P0_UK28b7o

Crochet,

Here's something for you to ponder. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.3 million light years away from earth, and we can see it without a telescope. If something is 2.3 million light years away, that means the light we see now, left the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million years ago. The light from Andromeda took that long to reach us, traveling at the speed of light.

If the light left 2.3 million years ago, logic tells us that the Andromeda Galaxy is at least 2.3 million years old. Then logically, how is the universe only 6,000-10,000 years old, as young earth creationists would have us believe?

Hint: don't google it. Use the brain God gave you, and you can see the logical answer.

RickD wrote:Crochet,

Here's something for you to ponder. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.3 million light years away from earth, and we can see it without a telescope. If something is 2.3 million light years away, that means the light we see now, left the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million years ago. The light from Andromeda took that long to reach us, traveling at the speed of light.

If the light left 2.3 million years ago, logic tells us that the Andromeda Galaxy is at least 2.3 million years old. Then logically, how is the universe only 6,000-10,000 years old, as young earth creationists would have us believe?

Hint: don't google it. Use the brain God gave you, and you can see the logical answer.

Speed of light isn't necessarily a constant. It appears to have changed over the years!
So theoretically it could have been 400 times faster than its current speed for us to have seen the Andromeda Galaxy within 6,000 years. So meh.

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:Crochet,

Here's something for you to ponder. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.3 million light years away from earth, and we can see it without a telescope. If something is 2.3 million light years away, that means the light we see now, left the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million years ago. The light from Andromeda took that long to reach us, traveling at the speed of light.

If the light left 2.3 million years ago, logic tells us that the Andromeda Galaxy is at least 2.3 million years old. Then logically, how is the universe only 6,000-10,000 years old, as young earth creationists would have us believe?

Hint: don't google it. Use the brain God gave you, and you can see the logical answer.

Speed of light isn't necessarily a constant. It appears to have changed over the years!
So theoretically it could have been 400 times faster than its current speed for us to have seen the Andromeda Galaxy within 6,000 years. So meh.

Now why do you always have to stir up trouble? Get thee behind me Tasmanian devil!!!

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:Crochet,

Here's something for you to ponder. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.3 million light years away from earth, and we can see it without a telescope. If something is 2.3 million light years away, that means the light we see now, left the Andromeda Galaxy 2.3 million years ago. The light from Andromeda took that long to reach us, traveling at the speed of light.

If the light left 2.3 million years ago, logic tells us that the Andromeda Galaxy is at least 2.3 million years old. Then logically, how is the universe only 6,000-10,000 years old, as young earth creationists would have us believe?

Hint: don't google it. Use the brain God gave you, and you can see the logical answer.

Speed of light isn't necessarily a constant. It appears to have changed over the years!
So theoretically it could have been 400 times faster than its current speed for us to have seen the Andromeda Galaxy within 6,000 years. So meh.

Now why do you always have to stir up trouble? Get thee behind me Tasmanian devil!!!

Maybe instead point out how much death and extinction is in the earth instead so that we know the earth is not 6000 years old.I mean,what could she say?We don't know how much life God created?

acb -- actually you're right -- we Don't know how much animal life God created. He simply said that He Created it. As for how much death and extinction has taken place. I'll be generous and give it 10,000 yrs instead of the 6,000. Buffalo are extinct I think. Or nearly so. Lots of things can become extinct in that amount of time. And Noah's flood did Some of that / the death. But there Does appear to be Lots of animal life here Now.

In Habakkuk's prayer (Habakkuk 3:6 NIV):

• "He stood, and shook the earth;
  he looked, and made the nations tremble.
  The ancient mountains crumbled
  and the age-old hills collapsed—
  but he marches on forever."

I guess those three days between the land rising out of the waters and the creation of man really make a difference, such that the mountains are "ancient" and hills are "age-old" but mankind isn't.

crochet1949 wrote:acb -- actually you're right -- we Don't know how much animal life God created. He simply said that He Created it. As for how much death and extinction has taken place. I'll be generous and give it 10,000 yrs instead of the 6,000. Buffalo are extinct I think. Or nearly so. Lots of things can become extinct in that amount of time. And Noah's flood did Some of that / the death. But there Does appear to be Lots of animal life here Now.

I guess nothing will work then to convince you the evidence in the earth shows it is not 6000 years old.But for me I don't think God would decieve us and I don't think that God's word will not line up with the nature that he created.I think,if they don't line up? We should question our interpretation. I mean even before I knew about Gap creationism I always believed that the more man discovers the more it will confirm more of God's word true and yet it does'nt if I go by YEC. I guess I could go by their "Christian science" but is'nt it better when secular science confirms God's word true even when they are not even trying to? It not only comes down to how we interpret the bible but also the evidence in the earth and Universe also,but I believe that they will line up with God's word and they do from where I'm looking from.

RickD wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:I had to type in /// Scientific Evidence for a World Wide Flood
Evidence for a Global Flood

Two very good articles.

I was asked for non-Biblical proof of a global flood. It's There. In plain secular English.

The link you posted does not work.

I noticed 'evolution' was misspelled, at least, but I found the Unmasking Evolution - Evidence for a Global Flood article. Try looking that up and see what you think of it. Some of the points are a bit flimsy but there are a lot of points.

Kurieuo wrote:In Habakkuk's prayer (Habakkuk 3:6 NIV):

• "He stood, and shook the earth;
  he looked, and made the nations tremble.
  The ancient mountains crumbled
  and the age-old hills collapsed—
  but he marches on forever."

I guess those three days between the land rising out of the waters and the creation of man really make a difference, such that the mountains are "ancient" and hills are "age-old" but mankind isn't.

Was that supposed to be describing something back at the creation of man? Or maybe the writer thought of humanity as being as ancient as the hills. We describe something as ancient when it's only 2000 years old. The passage is poetry, after all.