Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Danieltwotwenty 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.

The difference here is that Noah was told by God long before the flood happened that it would happen. It was not post flood that it was attributed to God it was pre 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.

Got any actual proof that it was fluffed up other than just opinion?

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

Actually no, I think the world wide interpretation is quite possible. Maybe we are just reading the evidence wrong.

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

So there should be no punishment for doing crimes? Do you think we should let rapists, murderers, paedophiles back out onto the street where they can continue to do what they do?

Why would the supposed warning be credible, when so much of the rest isnt?
If its not fluffed up, the "Noah" really lived 900 years? Titanium carbide teeth most likely.

And really world wide? That is the fluffed up part I was referring to Of course it can be disproved.
Surely you are not really asking that?

I dont see the purpose of your rhetorical "question" at the end there. I will tho say that as one who has
experienced sexual assault Im not cool with it being taken lightly.

Of course, you were not merely being rhetorical but veeringway of topic, making it about me, and being utterly unresponsive entirely to my observation that the belief that tornadoes, earthquakes, plagues etc are "god's wrath" is so totally stone age.

Except what, if its an outlandish bible story?

Your mind has been saturated with evolution science but if you ignore evolution science for a moment.Would you argue that something old works as good as something new? I don't think so,so why would it be hard to believe brand new humans with brand new DNA lived a lot longer than we do now after all of this time?It really seems evolutionists must deny the reality around them to believe the opposite oyuf what reality reveals to us and new things deteriorate over time and DNA does too,so that we are not nearly as strong as the first humans were.Look at the evidence around you,look at things around you deteriorating,wearing out,falling apart,etc.

Philip wrote:Explain how non-life became life, and before that (LONG before that!), kindly explain how a universe came from nothingness into being with immensely sophisticated and complex governing laws present from its very beginning. THEN I'll listen to so-called knowledgeable opinions as to how evolution could be true.

Ah, the "cart before the horse" approach. Sort of like demanding me to explain the Banach-Tarski Paradox to your satisfaction, before you'll agree on my description of a simple set.

Philip wrote:You've got a FAR bigger problems if you hang atheism's or agnosticism's validation on the supposed proofs of evolution.

Science doesn't do proof, which may partially explain your confusion. I "hang" my support of common descent (a subset of evolution) on observation of biological traits, the clear pattern of the objective nested hierarchy, and simple reasoning. Not sure why you're ranting about atheism or agnosticism.

Philip wrote:Not to mention you're arguing for processes that supposedly occurred over 10 billion years after what you ultimately REALLY need to be explaining.

Uh, no. My aim is much simpler here. Take the biological traits of living organisms. Group the organisms by those traits. An unmistakable pattern of one nested hierarchy emerges. That hierarchy supports the hypothesis of common descent. Not sure why everyone seems to keep babbling about fossils and deep time.

Philip wrote:It's just that your faith is rooted in the fantasy that nothingness can become something - and a quite complex and sophisticated something, instantly and by itself.

My faith is that you'll take a moment to just understand (not necessarily agree with) my simple point here of: simple biological observation, trait grouping, and then using hypothetico-deduction from the nested hierarchy as support for common descent. But so far, you're leaping to non-sequiturs like, "fantasy that nothingness can become something."

I love that science doesn't do proof admission yet evolution is true because I believe it is.This is the problem with science today just think up things you'll never be able to prove.This is all to prop up evolution science.But then to make it fit into the bible.

abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant to my point.I'm talking about societies that have been indoctrinated many times before I'm not really arguing the bible right now,just making a point about indoctrination of societies of the past and why I don't trust what man says is true especially without evidence.

It's not irrelevant, you just missed my point (although I probably wasn't very clear). It is definitely possible that you are the one that has been deceived, since you interpretation is just the words of a man based on very flimsy evidence and what I believe to be a faulty understanding of God's word and an incorrect translation of God's word. Evolution is not indoctrination, it is the best theory we have to explain all the evidence, it may change with newer evidence as time goes by, if it was indoctrinated it would not be subject to change and review, it would be 100% concrete.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I love that science doesn't do proof admission yet evolution is true because I believe it is.This is the problem with science today just think up things you'll never be able to prove.This is all to prop up evolution science.But then to make it fit into the bible.

I love that ACB doesn't do proof admission yet Gap Theory is true because I believe it is.This is the problem with Gap Theory today just think up things you'll never be able to prove.This is all to prop up ACB'S Gap Theory. But then to make it fit into the bible.

Morny wrote:Science doesn't do proof, which may partially explain your confusion. I "hang" my support of common descent (a subset of evolution) on observation of biological traits, the clear pattern of the objective nested hierarchy, and simple reasoning. Not sure why you're ranting about atheism or agnosticism.

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree, just wanted to highlight.

I understand what your saying Abel.
What we have to be careful of as well is not getting lost within our own interpretations and deductions. All we can do is look at the evidence, as christians, both scientifically and spiritually and come to our own conclusions. Which leads me often to a pretty open ended 'not entirely sure' scenario.
I think being open-minded, thinking outside the box, not believing the hype based solely on the 'hype', realising that 'majority' does equal truth, recognising the balance between observing that whilst whole societies have indeed been indoctrinated we don't fall into the same trap individually ourselves. Earnestly and honestly seeking truth is honestly I think the closest we can come to truth outside of absolute, objective truth.
We know God is our creator, what we don't know is how he went about His work. We are given a snapshot in scripture. With that we interpret it as we will but what unites us is much greater than what separates believers.
The lesson is God created us.
That notion alone is what separates us from the world.
I see Abels stance not so much against an evolution creation stance but more so with an unbelieving world that tries to rely on the wisdom of man outside of the reality of God. In that I understand wholly where he is coming from.
When you leave out God every aspect of life falters. I think every Christian can confirm this.
The intellect is no different.

Faith is all that is required in this life, when we go 'home' then the wisdom to understand what we seek is granted.
Ha imagine that, no arguing, no debating. We will all be 'right' all the time!

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant to my point.I'm talking about societies that have been indoctrinated many times before I'm not really arguing the bible right now,just making a point about indoctrination of societies of the past and why I don't trust what man says is true especially without evidence.

It's not irrelevant, you just missed my point (although I probably wasn't very clear). It is definitely possible that you are the one that has been deceived, since you interpretation is just the words of a man based on very flimsy evidence and what I believe to be a faulty understanding of God's word and an incorrect translation of God's word. Evolution is not indoctrination, it is the best theory we have to explain all the evidence, it may change with newer evidence as time goes by, if it was indoctrinated it would not be subject to change and review, it would be 100% concrete.

You are overlooking that I give evidence to back up what I believe and my interpretation which is something I've ever seen from you or any one who accepts evolution.I come with evidence while you and others just declare evolution true or just believe it.Just like above with Morny he does not give evidence but just gives scientistific rhetoric trying to appear smarter,when evidence is what he should be giving.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant to my point.I'm talking about societies that have been indoctrinated many times before I'm not really arguing the bible right now,just making a point about indoctrination of societies of the past and why I don't trust what man says is true especially without evidence.

It's not irrelevant, you just missed my point (although I probably wasn't very clear). It is definitely possible that you are the one that has been deceived, since you interpretation is just the words of a man based on very flimsy evidence and what I believe to be a faulty understanding of God's word and an incorrect translation of God's word. Evolution is not indoctrination, it is the best theory we have to explain all the evidence, it may change with newer evidence as time goes by, if it was indoctrinated it would not be subject to change and review, it would be 100% concrete.

You are overlooking that I give evidence to back up what I believe and my interpretation which is something I've ever seen from you or any one who accepts evolution.I come with evidence while you and others just declare evolution true or just believe it.Just like above with Morny he does not give evidence but just gives scientistific rhetoric trying to appear smarter,when evidence is what he should be giving.

Your "evidence" has been refuted already and I don't bother presenting mine because it is widely available on the net, but which you already reject because they are "the words of men", so what's the point!!!

It's like talking to a brick wall.

If you want to look at it from my point of view I would suggest reading all the books that Neo listed (can't remember where, search his posts) and go to Bio Logos and other such websites (not that I agree with everything they say, but meh it's a good start).

The bible tells us in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 that a former world perished and yet my evidence that a former world that existed that perished is all of the fossils ,coal and oil zand evidence of much life that died and went extinct,this is what we would find and we do.You need to stop looking at the evidence of a former world that existed that perished from an evolution perspective,because your interpretation is flawed,the evidence screams out a former world full of life perished before God created this world,but Peter also tells us that this world has not gone on since the beginning Genesis 1:1 so you can believe evolution that teaches "since our fathers died,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" or you can believe God's word that it has not gone on for millions of years.There was a gap you have overlooked.

abelcainsbrother wrote:The bible tells us in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 that a former world perished and yet my evidence that a former world that existed that perished is all of the fossils ,coal and oil zand evidence of much life that died and went extinct,this is what we would find and we do.You need to stop looking at the evidence of a former world that existed that perished from an evolution perspective,because your interpretation is flawed,the evidence screams out a former world full of life perished before God created this world,but Peter also tells us that this world has not gone on since the beginning Genesis 1:1 so you can believe evolution that teaches "since our fathers died,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" or you can believe God's word that it has not gone on for millions of years.There was a gap you have overlooked.

You are reading a faulty translation, Jac has already refuted it. The Bible never says there were two worlds.

melanie wrote:The reality is Audie you are looking through a lens that simply does not allow you to 'see' what a follower of Christ see's.
So in a world of academia, progressive thinking, intellectual reasoning the bridge has been shortened so much so that a Christian's spiritual integrity to place trust in God's actions and judgments digresses us to 'Stone Age thinking'.
You know we have heard it all before, it's not a new concept. Christians have been ridiculed for foolish thinking long before you or I graced this earth, and it will continue long after.
But the world cannot know what is found in the spirit. It is impossible. So your assertions are not surprising.
Your continual questioning on the intellectual level and honesty of those holding to God's word is testament to how much knowledge people can believe they hold but without the knowledge of the spiritual, mans arrogance will continue to seperate too many from knowledge, humilty and wisdom which can only come through accessing all avenues of the wisdom that has been granted to all of us.
Intellectual wisdom, emotional wisdom, and spiritual wisdom. Even then we still stumble, but it is the closest anyone can come in the well meaning, well rounded pursuit of knowledge.
Mind, body and spirit.
One can access knowledge and wisdom from all three without jeopardising the integrity of the other.
Like so much in life, balance is the key.

Mel, I do like you and appreciate so much your gentle way of speaking. You set a better standardt han my sometimes
hard- edged manner.

You dont always understand where I am coming from; how could you. Nor I, you.
But I've not the the least doubt of your goodheartedness and integrity. Id never ridicule you,
not directly nor indirectly.

Your post shows a couple of places you've misread my thoughts, I do nuance and distinctions somewhat better than
you might think. And, depending on just what is meant I'm
far from immune to spiritual matters.

I appreciate your taking time to express your thoughts to me.

M

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:That is irrelevant to my point.I'm talking about societies that have been indoctrinated many times before I'm not really arguing the bible right now,just making a point about indoctrination of societies of the past and why I don't trust what man says is true especially without evidence.

It's not irrelevant, you just missed my point (although I probably wasn't very clear). It is definitely possible that you are the one that has been deceived, since you interpretation is just the words of a man based on very flimsy evidence and what I believe to be a faulty understanding of God's word and an incorrect translation of God's word. Evolution is not indoctrination, it is the best theory we have to explain all the evidence, it may change with newer evidence as time goes by, if it was indoctrinated it would not be subject to change and review, it would be 100% concrete.

You are overlooking that I give evidence to back up what I believe and my interpretation which is something I've ever seen from you or any one who accepts evolution.I come with evidence while you and others just declare evolution true or just believe it.Just like above with Morny he does not give evidence but just gives scientistific rhetoric trying to appear smarter,when evidence is what he should be giving.

Your "evidence" has been refuted already and I don't bother presenting mine because it is widely available on the net, but which you already reject because they are "the words of men", so what's the point!!!

It's like talking to a brick wall.

If you want to look at it from my point of view I would suggest reading all the books that Neo listed (can't remember where, search his posts) and go to Bio Logos and other such websites (not that I agree with everything they say, but meh it's a good start).

My evidence has not been refuted you and others just continue on looking at the evidence in the earth from an evolution perspective,instead of a former world that perished perspective like I do.Your mind is full of evolution instead of a former world possibly existing,the evidence backs it up you just refuse to see the evidence for a former world.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The bible tells us in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 that a former world perished and yet my evidence that a former world that existed that perished is all of the fossils ,coal and oil zand evidence of much life that died and went extinct,this is what we would find and we do.You need to stop looking at the evidence of a former world that existed that perished from an evolution perspective,because your interpretation is flawed,the evidence screams out a former world full of life perished before God created this world,but Peter also tells us that this world has not gone on since the beginning Genesis 1:1 so you can believe evolution that teaches "since our fathers died,all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation" or you can believe God's word that it has not gone on for millions of years.There was a gap you have overlooked.

You are reading a faulty translation, Jac has already refuted it. The Bible never says there were two worlds.

There have been multiple "previous worlds" in the sense that conditions various points in the past would be profoundly
different than what we know today. Its a pity, when people wont take time to learn how to appreciate the beauty, wonder and mystery of what has gone has gone before.

Audie wrote:

melanie wrote:The reality is Audie you are looking through a lens that simply does not allow you to 'see' what a follower of Christ see's.
So in a world of academia, progressive thinking, intellectual reasoning the bridge has been shortened so much so that a Christian's spiritual integrity to place trust in God's actions and judgments digresses us to 'Stone Age thinking'.
You know we have heard it all before, it's not a new concept. Christians have been ridiculed for foolish thinking long before you or I graced this earth, and it will continue long after.
But the world cannot know what is found in the spirit. It is impossible. So your assertions are not surprising.
Your continual questioning on the intellectual level and honesty of those holding to God's word is testament to how much knowledge people can believe they hold but without the knowledge of the spiritual, mans arrogance will continue to seperate too many from knowledge, humilty and wisdom which can only come through accessing all avenues of the wisdom that has been granted to all of us.
Intellectual wisdom, emotional wisdom, and spiritual wisdom. Even then we still stumble, but it is the closest anyone can come in the well meaning, well rounded pursuit of knowledge.
Mind, body and spirit.
One can access knowledge and wisdom from all three without jeopardising the integrity of the other.
Like so much in life, balance is the key.

Mel, I do like you and appreciate so much your gentle way of speaking. You set a better standardt han my sometimes
hard- edged manner.

You dont always understand where I am coming from; how could you. Nor I, you.
But I've not the the least doubt of your goodheartedness and integrity. Id never ridicule you,
not directly nor indirectly.

Your post shows a couple of places you've misread my thoughts, I do nuance and distinctions somewhat better than
you might think. And, depending on just what is meant I'm
far from immune to spiritual matters.

I appreciate your taking time to express your thoughts to me.

M

Peace and love Audie
I've always had a soft spot for you, still do.