Evidence for God from Science

I feel you mock me.

Silvertusk wrote:I feel you mock me.

Mock, no!!!

Mocking to me, kinda shows a disrespect. No disrespect intended. Just playing around. More like playful teasing.
Sorry if it came of as mocking. It's just my sarcastic sense of humor.

That's pretty sad Neo. You throw away the creation story in Genesis because you think the only way to interpret it is through a YEC lens. So since you think YEC is wrong, then you're forcing yourself to reject scripture.

Neo, God wrote scripture. God created the universe. There's no contradiction between scripture and nature. Tbh, you are the first person I've met, with as much intelligence as you have, that calls himself a believer yet rejects (parts of) scripture because it doesn't match up with your worldview(evolutionary). You're taking yourself down a dangerous road Neo.

I am just being consistent Rick. I can't say Genesis one is not literal about the order of days or what came first but also literal when it mentions adam. That does not make sense. I'm just trying to be honest. I can't pick n choose from within the story, parts I like and parts I don't. The more I have thought about it, the more I have realized that there was no reason to use yom as ages. And I agree with Jac on that point. The story is yec because the later authors kept referencing it the same way, that adds support Rick.

The thing is I only reject the story as literal. I think its a made up story, adam and eve may be being the original clan leaders which started the later hebrew line. But I can't in good conscience say they were first humans. We know they weren't.

I am sorry if I have been the cause of sadness. I am quite troubled myself at times on things you like hinted, being on the dangerous road etc. But I must go with what makes sense. I can't cheat myself out of the honesty of my intentions and arguments. I can't believe what I don't find true.

One thing that does confuse me is if we have the bones of some of the earliest humans does that mean that we originated from several thousand people?

Yes indeed, modern humans did not descend from a single couple but a population of several hundreds of hominids.

How could you possibly reconcile a belief in human evolution with what the bible says about Adam and Eve, if you want to make them allegory Neo you need to provide evidence the bible treats them as so, this is one extremely difficult problem for theistic evolutionists that I think needs to be addressed by them.

Baltazorg wrote:How could you possibly reconcile a belief in human evolution with what the bible says about Adam and Eve, if you want to make them allegory Neo you need to provide evidence the bible treats them as so, this is one extremely difficult problem for theistic evolutionists that I think needs to be addressed by them.

I don't treat them as allegorical at all, I treat them as made up stories with important lessons and I understand the need of this story. I think the writers believed the story to the tittle with a YEC belief. The bible treats them as literal, quite literal actually as far as Adam and Eve are concerned.

Neo wrote:
I don't treat them as allegorical at all, I treat them as made up stories with important lessons and I understand the need of this story.

Neo, you just defined allegory.

allegory:
Date: 14th century
1 : the expression by means of fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence ; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression 2 : a symbolic representation : emblem

http://i.word.com/idictionary/allegory

Rick, an allegory is a story which the writers know, is fiction. If the writer writes the story as factual, then it can't be allegory at all.

Neo wrote:
I don't treat them as allegorical at all, I treat them as made up stories with important lessons and I understand the need of this story.

neo-x wrote:Rick, an allegory is a story which the writers know, is fiction. If the writer writes the story as factual, then it can't be allegory at all.

I got it now. The stories weren't written as fiction, they were just 'made up'.

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I don't treat them as allegorical at all, I treat them as made up stories with important lessons and I understand the need of this story.

neo-x wrote:Rick, an allegory is a story which the writers know, is fiction. If the writer writes the story as factual, then it can't be allegory at all.

I got it now. The stories weren't written as fiction, they were just 'made up'.

Rick, ur kidding right? The stories were fiction but not to the writers, they must have heard these stories through oral traditions, they thought it was real.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I don't treat them as allegorical at all, I treat them as made up stories with important lessons and I understand the need of this story.

neo-x wrote:Rick, an allegory is a story which the writers know, is fiction. If the writer writes the story as factual, then it can't be allegory at all.

I got it now. The stories weren't written as fiction, they were just 'made up'.

Rick, ur kidding right? The stories were fiction but not to the writers, they must have heard these stories through oral traditions, they thought it was real.

Neo, you're kidding, right? If the writers believed what they wrote was real, then it's non-fiction they wrote. Fiction in written form, is something the writer knows is not real.

So let me see if I understand you...

The writers inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote something they believed was real. But you, looking at scripture through your evolutionary 'lens', decide that it's not really real? So, did the HS deceive the writer? Or maybe, the Holy Spirit thought it was real too, because the HS didn't have the latest evolutionary beliefs at His disposal?

The writers inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote something they believed was real. But you, looking at scripture through your evolutionary 'lens', decide that it's not really real? So, did the HS deceive the writer? Or maybe, the Holy Spirit thought it was real too, because the HS didn't have the latest evolutionary beliefs at His disposal?

I think that the writers were still human, regardless of their inspiration and to demand perfection form them is not correct.
God created all and it was good, but not perfect and it was/is in need of redemption and if God created the world and it is in need of redemption, why is the bible any different?
Is the bible MORE than the world created by God?

Was this writer inspired when he said this?

5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.

7 Go then, eat your bread in happiness and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for God has already approved your works. 8 Let your clothes be white all the time, and let not oil be lacking on your head. 9 Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of your fleeting life which He has given to you under the sun; for this is your reward in life and in your toil in which you have labored under the sun.

If so why did he not know of God's grace? Of living in the spirit with God? or anything of "life after death" or "life after lifer after death"?

PaulSacramento wrote:
If so why did he not know of God's grace? Of living in the spirit with God? or anything of "life after death" or "life after lifer after death"?

I read that verse to mean the life of the dead body. The writer isn't referring to what happens in the afterlife, but what happens "under the sun". The dead are dead. The living are alive.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Neo wrote:
I don't treat them as allegorical at all, I treat them as made up stories with important lessons and I understand the need of this story.

neo-x wrote:Rick, an allegory is a story which the writers know, is fiction. If the writer writes the story as factual, then it can't be allegory at all.

I got it now. The stories weren't written as fiction, they were just 'made up'.

Rick, ur kidding right? The stories were fiction but not to the writers, they must have heard these stories through oral traditions, they thought it was real.

Neo, you're kidding, right? If the writers believed what they wrote was real, then it's non-fiction they wrote. Fiction in written form, is something the writer knows is not real.

So let me see if I understand you...

The writers inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote something they believed was real. But you, looking at scripture through your evolutionary 'lens', decide that it's not really real? So, did the HS deceive the writer? Or maybe, the Holy Spirit thought it was real too, because the HS didn't have the latest evolutionary beliefs at His disposal?

You know, its okay. I can't teach you something you don't want to learn. And I don't think you will learn as long as you guys are getting your science lessons from your favorite pastors.

You should rename this forum 'god and creation science' because that would be accurate.