Evidence for God from Science

dayage wrote:Calum,
I will respond more, soon.

What is so special about idaltu? We only have one complete adult brain case and its brain size is in the middle of many hominids.
Homo erectus (1.8 Mya-0.3 Mya) - Weidenreich reconstruction (~1043cc);
Sangiran 2 (~815cc); Sangiran 17 (~1029cc); Trinil 2 (~940cc); Hexian (~1000cc);
Zhoukoudian skulls - III, juvenile (~915cc); II (~1030cc); Gongwangling (~780cc);
XI (~1015cc); XII (~1030cc); V (~1140cc); Sm 4 (~1003cc); X (~1225cc)

Archaic Homo sapiens and heidelbergensis (0.6 Mya-0.13 Mya) - Kabwe or
Broken Hill 1 (~1280cc); Bodo (~1250cc); Aragon XXI (~1166cc);
Petralona 1 (~1220cc); Atapuerca 5 (~1125cc); Homo sapien idaltu (~1450cc);
Atapuerca 4 (~1390cc); Dali (~1120cc); Jinniushan (~1350cc)

Homo neanderthalensis (0.25 Mya-0.03 Mya) - La Ferrassie 1 (~1600cc);
La Chappelle-aux-Saints (~1620cc); Ehringsdorf H (~1450cc);
Amud 1 (~1740cc); Teshik-Tash, juvenile (~1500cc); Fontechevade 2 (~1350cc);
Saccopastore 1 (~1245cc); Saccopastore 2 (~1300cc)

Homo sapien sapiens (0.07-present) - Mladec 1 (~1540cc); Mladec 2 (~1390cc);
Mladec 5,6,46 (~1650cc); Cro-Magnon 1 (~1600cc); Qafzeh IX (~1550cc);
Qafzeh XI (~1554cc); Omo 1 (~1400cc+);
Today’s healthy range (900cc-2000cc)
Recorded geniuses (1000cc-2000cc). Today’s average (1350cc-1400cc)

Brain size does not mean much. Idaltu had the same types of tool sets as Neandertals and Erectus.

They did not look like us. They did not act like us. Anatomy is not reliable:
Phylogenetic tree problems
Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution is from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution. These two studies do not leave much hope for human evolution research.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm

Hominids, as all other animals, played a role in the ecology. God may have used them to prepare other animals for the arrival of humans. Studies have shown that in the continents where hominids did not exist, large mammals were quickly pushed to extinction by humans. This did not happen where hominids existed.

I don't see how any of this matters.
Yes, hominids basically had the same intelligence levels. However, idaltu was not only like us in intelligence but was within our phenotype range. These were unquestionable Homo sapiens, but not Homo sapiens sapiens. The boundary between sapiens and idaltu is spirituality.
It is only when we were gifted with spirits did we excel all others and rule over the birds of the air and the beasts of the field.
Because they all had similar intelligence levels, there is no point to making it seem like there were slow gradual steps leading up to humans if they all were relatively the same.

It doesn't really make sense for God to make so many hominids (all appearing as if they slowly and gradually evolved) just to prepare other animals for the arrival of humans. As you said, hominids, unlike humans, did not push other animals to extinction. There really would be no point to these hominids. Why not just create animals already prepared for Adam? And why so many hominids?
Adam was given a spirit and commanded to rule over all other non-spiritual beings. That's exactly what happens 50,000 years ago. We began to show traits associated with modern behavior - that is, spirituality.

Calum wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

KBCid wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world. I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.

Then your belief is in direct contradiction to the written text;

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:20 ...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

If there were already women in existence then these verses would be a lie.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Eve could not have been the mother of all living if she was formed after mankind (male and female) came into existence.

The genre in which genesis was written does NOT demand that we take all verses as literal and concrete.
If you choose to do so that is, of course, up to you.

But there's no reason not to believe Adam and Eve were two real people. Personally, I take an interpretation that is very concrete. The whole reason I became theistic evolutionist was because I took Genesis very literally, and Genesis seems to speak for evolution. It's strongly hinted throughout.

I agree that they were Two Real People, hence the Genealogy.

Calum,

Yes, hominids basically had the same intelligence levels. However, idaltu was not only like us in intelligence but was within our phenotype range.

Brain size does not equal intelligence. No homonid was like us in intelligence. When a new species was created it's tool kit remained unchange as long as the species existed. Their tools were very different than human tools.

Idaltu is also morphologically distinct from humans. Again, your trying to make a connection from one skull and no DNA.

It doesn't really make sense for God to make so many hominids (all appearing as if they slowly and gradually evolved) just to prepare other animals for the arrival of humans.

They were better and better at hunting. This could have helped prepare the animals for humans. Why did large animals go extinct, quickly, where no hominds existed, but remained for long periods, where hominids did exist?

As you said, hominids, unlike humans, did not push other animals to extinction. There really would be no point to these hominids.

see above

Why not just create animals already prepared for Adam?

Why do that? Most of the animals that lived alongside humans, had been around for about 10,000,000 years. Adam was created about 70,000-100,000 years ago.

And why so many hominids?

Why so many apes, cats, etc. God is a creative artist.

Adam was given a spirit and commanded to rule over all other non-spiritual beings.

The text says nothing about a spirit. You are just reading that into the text. God breathed life into the body which He had just created. This is what I will soon post about.

Dayage:

Brain size does not equal intelligence. No homonid was like us in intelligence. When a new species was created it's tool kit remained unchange as long as the species existed. Their tools were very different than human tools.

I know. My point was that the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens declared spiritual activity. There was a barrier between non-spiritual creations and spiritual creations.

Idaltu is also morphologically distinct from humans. Again, your trying to make a connection from one skull and no DNA.

It wasn't just one skull - it was three skulls (and I think a few more). The best preserved being from an adult male having a brain capacity of 1,450. Besides, the people studying these skulls are smart enough to distinguish them as Homo sapiens (idaltu) and not Neanderthals or Homo erectus.

They were better and better at hunting. This could have helped prepare the animals for humans. Why did large animals go extinct, quickly, where no hominds existed, but remained for long periods, where hominids did exist?

I don't quite understand - you're saying in places where there were no hominids, animals quickly went extinct, but where hominids existed the rate of extinction was slower? That doesn't exactly support your theory... In fact, it seems to be working in reverse from what your whole point seems to be about. Please clarify?

Why not just create animals already prepared for Adam?

Why do that? Most of the animals that lived alongside humans, had been around for about 10,000,000 years. Adam was created about 70,000-100,000 years ago.

I thought Adam appeared within the neighborhood of 60,000 to 50,000 years ago... I may be wrong. That's when they reached full behavioral modernity, though.
It makes no sense to slowly and progressively create various hominids (I don't think any of these hominids came close to accomplishing the environmental destruction humans have reeked on the Earth) just to prepare the animal/plant kingdom for spiritual beings. Besides, to 'prepare' animals for spiritual beings means they would need to evolve anyway. The spiritual humans would be very different from the non-spirit hominids.

Why so many apes, cats, etc. God is a creative artist.

God may be a creative artist, but I think these apes, cats, and others are a result of natural selection. It just fits better.

Adam was given a spirit and commanded to rule over all other non-spiritual beings.

The text says nothing about a spirit. You are just reading that into the text. God breathed life into the body which He had just created. This is what I will soon post about.

"You are just reading that into the text."
Lol, never heard that one before
Don't waste your time posting a new topic, I have your answers:
1) When God warns Adam not to eat of the tree of Good and Evil, he says 'you will surely die'. However, he did eat of the tree. We know he died, but not physically. This is a spiritual reference.
2) Eve is called 'the mother of all living'. Does this mean she was the mother of elephants, chickens, and mice? No! This is a spiritual reference. She is the mother of all those who have spirit.
3) The Bible says God made man in his image. This is obviously a spiritual reference, as God is not material, and doesn't have eyes, a nose, feet, a mouth, etc, so we can conclude that Adam was made in God's spiritual image and not his physical one. That is to say, he was given spirit.

Therefore, I think God merely breathed the living spirit into Adam, not physical life. It's very clear from the text, perfectly acceptable if not more so. One thing to keep in mind during this debate is that only a few years ago I was Progressive Creationist. I've used around 90% of the same arguments you are posting right now

God breathed His breathe into Adam and Adam became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7 -
7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living [f]being (soul).

Genesis 1 and 2 are two "different" accounts of creation, with 1 focusing on the universe and earth ( by the elohist tradition) and 2 focusing on Man and Woman and the fall (Yahwist tradition).

Some have issue with the "lack of science" in the Genesis 2 account:
5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to [c]cultivate the ground.
Which seems to suggest that there was no "water cycle" until Man came to be, which we know can't be the case.
Some solve this "issue" by stating that Genesis 2 while mentioning all the Earth in the creative process, is directly focussing on the Garden of Eden:
8 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I think that if we take the genre of writing into account ( The story of Man's fall from Grace in Genesis 2 and so forth) what we see is a tradtion more interested in stating that the world was made by God and explaining how man was singled out and given "paradise" and how man in his arrogance and pride LOST everything that was "made for him".

PaulSacramento wrote:They were real people that actually existed in the Garden of Eden that were cast out and had to deal with the rest of the world. I believe that the rest of the world already had people in it by the time they were cast out.

KBCid wrote:Then your belief is in direct contradiction to the written text;
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:20 ...but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
If there were already women in existence then these verses would be a lie.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Eve could not have been the mother of all living if she was formed after mankind (male and female) came into existence.

PaulSacramento wrote:The genre in which genesis was written does NOT demand that we take all verses as literal and concrete.
If you choose to do so that is, of course, up to you.

What?
So it would be your assertion that the text does not mean what it says? Tell me what part of those verses actually mean something entirely different from what is written?

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

What?
So it would be your assertion that the text does not mean what it says? Tell me what part of those verses actually mean something entirely different from what is written?

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

For something to NOT b e literal doesn't mean it means something "entirely different".
Where did you get that idea?
We say things like "the sun is melting my skin", is that to be taken literal?
And if not does that mean that it is something entirely different?

Many bible literalists like to quote 2Timothy 3:16 but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya:
I don't think that means what you think it means.
NO where in that verse does it say that ALL the bible is to be TAKEN LITERALLY.

I would ask you then, what is "God inspired" about Chronicles?
Or, when a passage states that all of a people were destroyed and yet they make an appearence later one, is the bible in error or should we NOT have taken what was written as literal and merely understood it to be the typical "writing of the genre" ?

KBCid wrote:What? So it would be your assertion that the text does not mean what it says? Tell me what part of those verses actually mean something entirely different from what is written?
2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

PaulSacramento wrote:For something to NOT be literal doesn't mean it means something "entirely different".
Where did you get that idea? We say things like "the sun is melting my skin", is that to be taken literal? And if not does that mean that it is something entirely different?

We modern people can say things that are conceptual. Ancient hebrews didn't have that luxury. One must differentiate between the tools we currently have to use verses what ancient people had.

PaulSacramento wrote:Many bible literalists like to quote 2Timothy 3:16 but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya:
I don't think that means what you think it means. NO where in that verse does it say that ALL the bible is to be TAKEN LITERALLY.

It has no need to state that it must be taken 'literally' since the ancient hebrews had no other option. You are viewing statements made to a specific people at a specific time in historical record. When you presume to apply current written styles and concepts to ancient texts then 'YOU' are adding something that was not present during the initial writing.... options...

PaulSacramento wrote:I would ask you then, what is "God inspired" about Chronicles?
Or, when a passage states that all of a people were destroyed and yet they make an appearence later one, is the bible in error or should we NOT have taken what was written as literal and merely understood it to be the typical "writing of the genre" ?

Chronicles is part of the testimony...
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony
The jews were the people used to convey an understanding of God via their interactions with him in two ways. One shows testimony that shows what occurs when they obey and another shows what happens when you don't. Chronicles was a dvision point where the people decided to have a fleshly king over them rather than God. It properly shows how such a government is different from that which God wanted. In many cases we read of people not wanting to follow God's direction so he essentially gives them over to their desires so that maybe they will learn the error of their ways... or not. however, by inspiring the recording of the events of these times it provides a later reader to get a feel for what happens when people think they can govern themselves better than God can. Without the inspired records to allow us to see both sides then we would not have a proper understanding of 'why' it is better to obey God than to do your own thing.
Ultimately a scripture does not have to be a direct word spoken by God. It can also be specific bits of recorded history that God wishes to be part of his text and for his purposes. A good reference would be Job where Jobs friend spoke in error and it was recorded in the bible yet God himself says its wrong... how else might one contrast themself from others unless they provide you both sides to compare.

Seems to me KBCid, from my conversations and studies with my Jewish friends, that you may have it backwards.
The Hebrews did NOT take ALL of the bible literally ( at least not the learned ones), they took what was written as historical as historical, poetic as poetic and prophecy as prophecy.
You say they didn't have the option NOT to take it literally, well, how do you explain the commandment of God to kill ALL the Amalekites and that it was written that they did that and YET there are still Amalekites around AFTER that war?

It is not clear if the historical Amalekites were exterminated or not. 1 Samuel 15:7-8 seems to imply ("He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.") that - after Agag was also killed - the people of Agag were extinct, but in a later story in the time of Hezekiah, the Simeonites annihilated some Amalekites on Mount Seir, and settled in their place: "And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day." (1 Chr. 4:42-43).

If ALL the bible is to be taken literal AND concrete then the writer of 1Samuel was wrong.

That is of course NOT the case because the writer was simply writing in the genre KNOWN to the people of his time, THEY understood what was meant, that it was "hyperbole" to show the type of destruction that happened and not to mean LITERALLY that ALL were killed.

The parables of Christ were NOT literal events that happened and we don't take them as such.

We should be very careful to take as literal and concrete what was NOT written to be take as such.

There is nothing that can be viewed as "god breathed" or "inspired" in 1Chronicles ( to use it as an example), it is simply that, a chronical of the history of the Hebrews at that time, genealogies and so forth.
God didn't need to "inspire" or "breathe" anything to the Writer(s) of that book, anymore than He would the writer of any historical book.
Now, Isaish and Jeramiah, those two are inspired books.

Yes, hominids basically had the same intelligence levels. However, idaltu was not only like us in intelligence but was within our phenotype range.

How does one meaure intellegence levels from bones?

PaulSacramento wrote:Seems to me KBCid, from my conversations and studies with my Jewish friends, that you may have it backwards. The Hebrews did NOT take ALL of the bible literally ( at least not the learned ones), they took what was written as historical as historical, poetic as poetic and prophecy as prophecy.

Are your jewish friends experts in the hebrew language?

...Our modern languages are the product of a Greco-Roman world
where abstract words are prolific. An abstract idea is a word or
thought that cannot be related to one of the five senses: hearing,
sight, touch, smell, or taste. However, each Hebrew word is
related to a concrete idea, a substance of action.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore ... s/tlw1.pdf

The bible can indeed speak prophetically or poetically and historically. The key I was pointing to is that ancient hebrew was not built on or for abstract concepts. If you could not link a word to something related to the senses then you could not provide understanding for the abstract concept. Therefore most any abstract concept we are familiar with is beyond anything known in ancient hebrew culture and writing. A simple example here would be the christian concept of creation of something from absolute nothing. There is nothing in the hebrew culture or written language that could provide for such an abstract concept as absolute nothing and yet this understanding is considered a foundational understanding of modern christianity.

PaulSacramento wrote:You say they didn't have the option NOT to take it literally, well, how do you explain the commandment of God to kill ALL the Amalekites and that it was written that they did that and YET there are still Amalekites around AFTER that war?

Are you simply reading the english words or are you considering also the original hebrew? I have not focused my study on the particular examples you are referring to so it would be beyond my ability to comment on with understanding. However, I have seen something that may yet provide a better understanding here;

Deu 20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it....
Deu 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
Deu 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee...

So were the amalekites you mention in both instances living in the "cities"?

PaulSacramento wrote:There is nothing that can be viewed as "god breathed" or "inspired" in 1Chronicles ( to use it as an example), it is simply that, a chronical of the history of the Hebrews at that time, genealogies and so forth.
God didn't need to "inspire" or "breathe" anything to the Writer(s) of that book, anymore than He would the writer of any historical book. Now, Isaish and Jeramiah, those two are inspired books.

It would seem that you think that what was written in chronicles is simply history without the need for God to direct or inspire but, this is logically incorrect. The fact is that not all the history was written down. God inspired the writers to note very specific points relevant to his story. The same way one of us might choose a clip from another writing within the body of an article we may write. We don't usually reference the entirety of an external article, we by choice clip those things which provide a direct relevance as it is applied to our own text so also does God inspire the historians to write those things which are relevant to his testimony. In other words the text provided in chronicles was chosen by God through inspiration of his writers to note only those things that had a relevance to his specific story. Try to consider all the daily things that a historian could have written about for any of the nations... how much of all the things that occur every year are worthy of historic rememberance? each and every one of us would consider very different things as being worthy but God is the one who is causing the specific records to be written so it would be logical that these records are not merely just a random historic record being used as filler. each of the records has relevance from Gods POV. This is where inspiration comes into play.

Are your jewish friends experts in the hebrew language?

Michael is a researcher for the Jewish Research Center here in Toronto, Ancient Hebrew is his specialty
His uncle is a Hebrew Scholar and Rabbi and they, amongst others , have been excellent in helping me understand many of the issues I had with the OT.
The writings of Paul Copand are also excellent.

KBCid wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There is nothing that can be viewed as "god breathed" or "inspired" in 1Chronicles ( to use it as an example), it is simply that, a chronical of the history of the Hebrews at that time, genealogies and so forth.
God didn't need to "inspire" or "breathe" anything to the Writer(s) of that book, anymore than He would the writer of any historical book. Now, Isaish and Jeramiah, those two are inspired books.

It would seem that you think that what was written in chronicles is simply history without the need for God to direct or inspire but, this is logically incorrect. The fact is that not all the history was written down. God inspired the writers to note very specific points relevant to his story. The same way one of us might choose a clip from another writing within the body of an article we may write. We don't usually reference the entirety of an external article, we by choice clip those things which provide a direct relevance as it is applied to our own text so also does God inspire the historians to write those things which are relevant to his testimony. In other words the text provided in chronicles was chosen by God through inspiration of his writers to note only those things that had a relevance to his specific story. Try to consider all the daily things that a historian could have written about for any of the nations... how much of all the things that occur every year are worthy of historic rememberance? each and every one of us would consider very different things as being worthy but God is the one who is causing the specific records to be written so it would be logical that these records are not merely just a random historic record being used as filler. each of the records has relevance from Gods POV. This is where inspiration comes into play.

So your view of "God inspired" is that God ( via the HS I assume) inspired Man to write, yes?
And man writes from "God's POV" ?