Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:So... you get a story like the flood, which is said to have been verified by Jesus.

So was the flood local or global? I think it was local. But the details of the flood are unimportant, the reason why there was a flood is much more important.

You are not really using the SEDI argument, in bold above, are you? (same evidence different interpretaion)

?? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Its integral to the OT story. Its a major event, the biggest single one in earth history, if true.

When it is pointed out that it is simply a story, that no such event took place,
that is quibbling? its not "science vs religion". Neither in the non existence of Atlantis and Mu.

It is quibbling, it may have been local (which there is a ton of evidence for) but these are the details of the event which are of little importance, the important parts you have missed completely just like the Pharisees.

Try this...

You are on trial for you life in some third world country. Your defense introduces the evidence that shows the prosecution case rests on your having been in the hotel on the night in question. The hotel had not been built yet, nor were you in the country at the time.

"Quibbling pharises", the judge says. Seriously?

This is a false dichotomy (dilemma) and a false analogy, The hotel exists, what is in question is how big the hotel was, was it 3 floors or 10 floors tall, but the information of how tall it was is irrelevant to the fact of why the person stayed in the hotel.

Lets look at it this way. People have long tended to blame god's wrath for natural disasters; earthquakes, plague, drought, tsunami, volcano, flood.

IF there is a seed of reality to the flood story, it got fluffed up till nothing of the original is left but maybe the word water.

People like you can see that world wide, as is clearly described, didnt happen.

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions. To insist it was global requires going off the deep end. (see "hydroplate theory" on youtube)

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

Audie wrote:
Lets look at it this way. People have long tended to blame god's wrath for natural disasters; earthquakes, plague, drought, tsunami, volcano, flood.

IF there is a seed of reality to the flood story, it got fluffed up till nothing of the original is left but maybe the word water.

People like you can see that world wide, as is clearly described, didnt happen.

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions. To insist it was global requires going off the deep end. (see "hydroplate theory" on youtube)

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

With the underlined, I'm sure you'd be happy to know that a large number of Christians agree with you, FWIW.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Lets look at it this way. People have long tended to blame god's wrath for natural disasters; earthquakes, plague, drought, tsunami, volcano, flood.

IF there is a seed of reality to the flood story, it got fluffed up till nothing of the original is left but maybe the word water.

People like you can see that world wide, as is clearly described, didnt happen.

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions. To insist it was global requires going off the deep end. (see "hydroplate theory" on youtube)

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

With the underlined, I'm sure you'd be happy to know that a large number of Christians agree with you, FWIW.

Depends. if they figure it had to be world wide, well, that is depressing.

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions.

Not, not really:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl ... hole-earth

PaulSacramento wrote:

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions.

Not, not really:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl ... hole-earth

I've seen those ideas before. The book says one thing, the evidence shows another.

The contortion is to try to fit it to what the bible actually says.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions.

Not, not really:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl ... hole-earth

I've seen those ideas before. The book says one thing, the evidence shows another.

The contortion is to try to fit it to what the bible actually says.

Because everywhere in genesis and in the bible when "all the land" is mentioned it means the whole planet?
No, it doesn't.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions.

Not, not really:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl ... hole-earth

I've seen those ideas before. The book says one thing, the evidence shows another.

The contortion is to try to fit it to what the bible actually says.

Because everywhere in genesis and in the bible when "all the land" is mentioned it means the whole planet?
No, it doesn't.

I do know the bible isnt big on meaning what it says. But its pretty explicit about killing off everything in this case.

And if not..

Then why (on earth) would Noah need to ark, with all the animals two by two?

Float about for months, send a dove to look for land?

Procrustes would have a time with fitting geology and bible.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions.

Not, not really:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl ... hole-earth

I've seen those ideas before. The book says one thing, the evidence shows another.

The contortion is to try to fit it to what the bible actually says.

Because everywhere in genesis and in the bible when "all the land" is mentioned it means the whole planet?
No, it doesn't.

I do know the bible isnt big on meaning what it says. But its pretty explicit about killing off everything in this case.

And if not..

Then why (on earth) would Noah need to ark, with all the animals two by two?

Float about for months, send a dove to look for land?

Procrustes would have a time with fitting geology and bible.

It's a story, a story with theological implications and a story that has enough significance that we still talk about it today.
Did it happen?
I believe so.
Exactly like described in the bible?
Nope, probably not ( I doubt that every creature in the land was on the ark).
Did it last for the 40 days and 40 nights and so forth?
No, probably not, OT writers had a thing for number meaning certain things.

Does it matter if the events did not happen ( according to our historical-scientific understanding) the exact way the bible describes?
Nope, since the writers were far more interested in getting a theological point across than "logistics", I am sure they cared more about that than being 100% accurate on what THEY would view as minor details.

PaulS wrote:
It's a story, a story with theological implications and a story that has enough significance that we still talk about it today.
Did it happen?
I believe so.
Exactly like described in the bible?
Nope, probably not ( I doubt that every creature in the land was on the ark).
Did it last for the 40 days and 40 nights and so forth?
No, probably not, OT writers had a thing for number meaning certain things.

Does it matter if the events did not happen ( according to our historical-scientific understanding) the exact way the bible describes?
Nope, since the writers were far more interested in getting a theological point across than "logistics", I am sure they cared more about that than being 100% accurate on what THEY would view as minor details.

Now you're losing me Paul!
First,
If you're going to argue against what the bible actually says, it doesn't say all the animals in the land were in the ark. It says a male and female of each kind, plus more for sacrifices.

That's why you need to come back to the good side(PC), so you can believe what the bible actually says.

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:So... you get a story like the flood, which is said to have been verified by Jesus.

So was the flood local or global? I think it was local. But the details of the flood are unimportant, the reason why there was a flood is much more important.

You are not really using the SEDI argument, in bold above, are you? (same evidence different interpretaion)

?? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Its integral to the OT story. Its a major event, the biggest single one in earth history, if true.

When it is pointed out that it is simply a story, that no such event took place,
that is quibbling? its not "science vs religion". Neither in the non existence of Atlantis and Mu.

It is quibbling, it may have been local (which there is a ton of evidence for) but these are the details of the event which are of little importance, the important parts you have missed completely just like the Pharisees.

Try this...

You are on trial for you life in some third world country. Your defense introduces the evidence that shows the prosecution case rests on your having been in the hotel on the night in question. The hotel had not been built yet, nor were you in the country at the time.

"Quibbling pharises", the judge says. Seriously?

This is a false dichotomy (dilemma) and a false analogy, The hotel exists, what is in question is how big the hotel was, was it 3 floors or 10 floors tall, but the information of how tall it was is irrelevant to the fact of why the person stayed in the hotel.

Lets look at it this way. People have long tended to blame god's wrath for natural disasters; earthquakes, plague, drought, tsunami, volcano, flood.

IF there is a seed of reality to the flood story, it got fluffed up till nothing of the original is left but maybe the word water.

People like you can see that world wide, as is clearly described, didnt happen.

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions. To insist it was global requires going off the deep end. (see "hydroplate theory" on youtube)

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

You are still missing the point, it doesn't matter whether it was exaggerated or not, the theological implication is what is important, like I said when I changed you analogy, it doesn't matter how tall the hotel was the important bit was why did the person stay in the hotel and what implication does that have for the judge. Like I said earlier, you are getting bogged down in the details of what the text says rather than looking at what the text means to us.

I suggest however that you read through all the material on the main site on whether the flood was global or local (not that it really matters), personally I think the text says it was local but ultimately I don't give hoot because it is not a detail that is important to understanding the meaning of it.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... trans.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ology.html

There are plenty more also, if you care to take a look, but like I keep saying it's not really important to understanding and having a relationship with God, these are details I think the Pharisees would bicker about, they would say things like you must believe such and such or you are compromising God's word etc..etc..

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions.

Not, not really:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl ... hole-earth

I've seen those ideas before. The book says one thing, the evidence shows another.

The contortion is to try to fit it to what the bible actually says.

Hey Preach, you and Jac would appear to have something in common.

The Bible should just be allowed to speak for itself, original language and all.
Did you know there was a famine all over the face of the earth too? (Gen 41:56)
Or maybe we can listen to 2 Peter 3:5-6 to understand it was the world at that time.

Gleason Archer wrote a bit on "phenomenal language" used and how we should understand it.
Highly recommend reading this paper of his.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Micro and macro is a false issue. There is no line between them. Its like miceo and macro money. No "creationist" trying to "hammer" anyone wit it has any luck for that simple reason. They cannot identify the line, nor explain how it would work. Its just blather.

It's not a false issue Audie. While there may not be a distinct line, there is a difference. Even to evolutionists.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Well then Macro evolution is observable, ring species are an example.

Seriously though, what is considered a species then, when they can no longer mate are they now a seperate species?

No talk origins will tell you that you cannot say life has evolved when it can no longer breed because there are many examples of life that can still breed and it is believed it evolved.Talk origins says this not a creationist.I go by evidence which is why I reject evolution.

PaulSacramento wrote:It's a story, a story with theological implications and a story that has enough significance that we still talk about it today.
Did it happen?
I believe so.
Exactly like described in the bible?
Nope, probably not ( I doubt that every creature in the land was on the ark).
Did it last for the 40 days and 40 nights and so forth?
No, probably not, OT writers had a thing for number meaning certain things.

Does it matter if the events did not happen ( according to our historical-scientific understanding) the exact way the bible describes?
Nope, since the writers were far more interested in getting a theological point across than "logistics", I am sure they cared more about that than being 100% accurate on what THEY would view as minor details.

PaulS, you probably read it, but if not thought this article might interest you: https://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Audie wrote:So... you get a story like the flood, which is said to have been verified by Jesus.

So was the flood local or global? I think it was local. But the details of the flood are unimportant, the reason why there was a flood is much more important.

You are not really using the SEDI argument, in bold above, are you? (same evidence different interpretaion)

?? Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Its integral to the OT story. Its a major event, the biggest single one in earth history, if true.

When it is pointed out that it is simply a story, that no such event took place,
that is quibbling? its not "science vs religion". Neither in the non existence of Atlantis and Mu.

It is quibbling, it may have been local (which there is a ton of evidence for) but these are the details of the event which are of little importance, the important parts you have missed completely just like the Pharisees.

Try this...

You are on trial for you life in some third world country. Your defense introduces the evidence that shows the prosecution case rests on your having been in the hotel on the night in question. The hotel had not been built yet, nor were you in the country at the time.

"Quibbling pharises", the judge says. Seriously?

This is a false dichotomy (dilemma) and a false analogy, The hotel exists, what is in question is how big the hotel was, was it 3 floors or 10 floors tall, but the information of how tall it was is irrelevant to the fact of why the person stayed in the hotel.

Lets look at it this way. People have long tended to blame god's wrath for natural disasters; earthquakes, plague, drought, tsunami, volcano, flood.

IF there is a seed of reality to the flood story, it got fluffed up till nothing of the original is left but maybe the word water.

People like you can see that world wide, as is clearly described, didnt happen.

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions. To insist it was global requires going off the deep end. (see "hydroplate theory" on youtube)

To make the message of the story be that god send a flood to punish is to regress to stone age thinking.

You are still missing the point, it doesn't matter whether it was exaggerated or not, the theological implication is what is important, like I said when I changed you analogy, it doesn't matter how tall the hotel was the important bit was why did the person stay in the hotel and what implication does that have for the judge. Like I said earlier, you are getting bogged down in the details of what the text says rather than looking at what the text means to us.

I suggest however that you read through all the material on the main site on whether the flood was global or local (not that it really matters), personally I think the text says it was local but ultimately I don't give hoot because it is not a detail that is important to understanding the meaning of it.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... trans.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ology.html

There are plenty more also, if you care to take a look, but like I keep saying it's not really important to understanding and having a relationship with God, these are details I think the Pharisees would bicker about, they would say things like you must believe such and such or you are compromising God's word etc..etc..

Whether some apologists decide it must a local or global means nothing to me.
They will never agree, nor settle if there was any flood at all at the core of it.

What is the "theological point " other than that god will get you big time if you dont behave,
a point made over and over thru the book?

Group punishments are done via "natural" disasters, and get everyone in range, regardless of individual
guilt or innocence...stone age thinking.

Evident to me is that the priests found it profitable to have
people in their thrall and liberally used the carrot and stick thing.

How ix that missing the point?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

To try to salvage something of it, like that it was really local requires some real contortions.

Not, not really:
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl ... hole-earth

I've seen those ideas before. The book says one thing, the evidence shows another.

The contortion is to try to fit it to what the bible actually says.

Because everywhere in genesis and in the bible when "all the land" is mentioned it means the whole planet?
No, it doesn't.

So all means some. War is peace, freedom is slavery.