Evidence for God from Science

Maybe a different word is needed then, as that is not a viable definition for species.

The capable / incapable of offspring is not so simple, as with
'ring species", and, two genera as with domestic cattle and the american bison.

I'd think of sapiens and neader as different species, but the incapable of
producing viable offspring part, I guess that is undetermined.

Audie: Some among us are not even concerned about "theism vs non-theism" nor is it relvant to science in any case.

Then, Dear Min, why are you HERE? This forum is GOD & science. I all you care about is discussing science, well, you can do that. But you could do that on any science forum. Please don't take that as me not wanting you here - as I most certainly DO. It's just that the thread title asks about one's "CREATION interpretation" - so, the question of theism IS the context - as is the entire forum.

Audie: "... nor is it relevant to science in any case."

Well, the origins and mechanisms of causes are what science is all about, is it not? So how is it that you want to ONLY discuss subsequent/dependent processes while ignoring the ultimate cause of ALL possible processes - at least on THIS forum? Really, I can't imagine why one not interested in the God question would want to hang out here - whether a theist or a non-theist. nor is it relvant to science in any case

At the very least, with regards to a first cause or Cause, the honest thing to do (of those who DO like to discuss it) , would be to admit that 1) The cause of all things had to be incredibly intelligent, unfathomably powerful, and anything but random in both what instantly burst into existence at the Big Bang and for any subsequent processes - be they evolution/special or progressive creation, etc.

Even evolution's supposed mechanisms could not operate from pure randomness, undirected/uncontrolled. And as evolutionists of multiple stripes do not agree upon the various catalysts, mechanisms or processes, relentlessly arguing over them seems to have little merit. Especially, as most on this forum arguing for whatever creation or evolution position passionately do so because of either their theist or non-theist views, and/or their views of how those views do or do not relate to Scripture. So, to ONLY relentlessly argue about science, just for the sake of SCIENCE, on THIS forum, seems rather pointless. It's really on a level with those arguing the whole OEC/YEC issue - why continue the endless debate? At what point have enough posts been made about it? But, at LEAST, THAT debate is framed per the key subject of this forum.

Philip wrote:

Audie: Some among us are not even concerned about "theism vs non-theism" nor is it relvant to science in any case.

Then, Dear Min, why are you HERE? This forum is GOD & science. I all you care about is discussing science, well, you can do that. But you could do that on any science forum. Please don't take that as me not wanting you here - as I most certainly DO. It's just that the thread title asks about one's "CREATION interpretation" - so, the question of theism IS the context - as is the entire forum.

I believe Audie's creation position is Theistic Evolution? How she interprets Scripture, well, probably most of creation in Genesis is more figurative literature rather than strictly historical. Something like the Framework Hypothesis right Auds?

Philip wrote:

Audie: Some among us are not even concerned about "theism vs non-theism" nor is it relvant to science in any case.

Then, Dear Min, why are you HERE? This forum is GOD & science. I all you care about is discussing science, well, you can do that. But you could do that on any science forum. Please don't take that as me not wanting you here - as I most certainly DO. It's just that the thread title asks about one's "CREATION interpretation" - so, the question of theism IS the context - as is the entire forum.

Audie: "... nor is it relevant to science in any case."

Well, the origins and mechanisms of causes are what science is all about, is it not? So how is it that you want to ONLY discuss subsequent/dependent processes while ignoring the ultimate cause of ALL possible processes - at least on THIS forum? Really, I can't imagine why one not interested in the God question would want to hang out here - whether a theist or a non-theist. nor is it relvant to science in any case

At the very least, with regards to a first cause or Cause, the honest thing to do (of those who DO like to discuss it) , would be to admit that 1) The cause of all things had to be incredibly intelligent, unfathomably powerful, and anything but random in both what instantly burst into existence at the Big Bang and for any subsequent processes - be they evolution/special or progressive creation, etc.

Even evolution's supposed mechanisms could not operate from pure randomness, undirected/uncontrolled. And as evolutionists of multiple stripes do not agree upon the various catalysts, mechanisms or processes, relentlessly arguing over them seems to have little merit. Especially, as most on this forum arguing for whatever creation or evolution position passionately do so because of either their theist or non-theist views, and/or their views of how those views do or do not relate to Scripture. So, to ONLY relentlessly argue about science, just for the sake of SCIENCE, on THIS forum, seems rather pointless. It's really on a level with those arguing the whole OEC/YEC issue - why continue the endless debate? At what point have enough posts been made about it? But, at LEAST, THAT debate is framed per the key subject of this forum.

You neglected to mention why you speak of proving theory nor yet explain your saying I am "wrong".

Then you can get to thecq about why discuss anything at all, as there is only one q., apoarently, and
it has no answer.

Kurieuo wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: Some among us are not even concerned about "theism vs non-theism" nor is it relvant to science in any case.

Then, Dear Min, why are you HERE? This forum is GOD & science. I all you care about is discussing science, well, you can do that. But you could do that on any science forum. Please don't take that as me not wanting you here - as I most certainly DO. It's just that the thread title asks about one's "CREATION interpretation" - so, the question of theism IS the context - as is the entire forum.

I believe Audie's creation position is Theistic Evolution? How she interprets Scripture, well, probably most of creation in Genesis is more figurative literature rather than strictly historical. Something like the Framework Hypothesis right Auds?

We've* noted that you believe many odd things.

* Ardy will note my use of the Royal "we", a bit more of that
to which we have granted ( soft "a") Audie. ( here referred to in the
3rd person, as is betimes befitting)

DBowling wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Eventhough they are looking at everything from an evolution view-point scientists have discovered that both humans and neanderthals mated with each other.How does your creation interpretation address this?About 100,000 years ago neanderthals and humans mated.How does OEC/Progressive creationism,Theistic evolution,Intelligent Design,Young Earth creationism,the Gap Theory,etc address these issues biblically?
http://phys.org/news/2016-02-neandertha ... ously.html

A couple of points...
1. There is not currently a consensus opinion among anthropologists regarding whether or not humans and neanderthals interbred. Some scientists believe there are DNA clues that demonstrate interbreeding. Other scientists dispute those assertions. So to the best of my knowledge the verdict is still out on where the evidence really points.
2. My biggest problem with the article is their time frame for the alleged interbreeding doesn't work. The article claims that the interbreeding took place around 100,000 years ago, but the archaeological and DNA evidence that I'm aware of indicates that Humans didn't enter Europe and encounter Neanderthals until around 50,000 years ago. So the article has to assert a previously unknown migration of humans into Europe 50,000 years before we see any evidence of humans in Europe.

I personally think that interbreeding between Humans and Neanderthals is unlikely, but that is based on the scientific data and not my Origins perspective. My current perspective is that Humans and Neanderthals are separate hominid species, and therefore it is unlikely that they interbred. If the evidence of interbreeding eventually becomes more compelling than it currently is, then I might have to reevaluate my current view that Neanderthals are a separate species from Humans.

Whether or not Human/Neanderthal interbreeding is consistent with the Biblical narrative depends on how a person's interpretation of the Biblical narrative answers the following two questions...
1. Does the Bible claim that Adam is the genetic progenitor of all humans, or does the Bible claim that humans were created (Genesis 1:26-27) at some time prior to the appearance of Adam in Genesis 2?
2. Are Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and Neanderthals two distinct hominid species, or are they distant relatives within a broader human species?

My .02

Thanks for responding to my question.I will go over your view and consider it and compare it to others. Just a few things though that stick out to me. First scientists are looking at this from an evolution perspective,whether they believe neanderthals bred with humans or not. To me they are already looking at this from a flawed perspective,however I don't think they are lying about the DNA in both neanderthals and humans. Just like anything else this comes down to how you interpret the evidence and they are interpreting it from an evolution perspective. I still believe we have an answer in God's word that will address this and this is what I'm trying to discover.I have a few other perspectives I know about to consider too.

Regarding the picture -- no way. Actually it Could be considered 'beastiality' which is forbidden in Scripture. There's nothing Normal being protrayed in that picture.

The huge question is WERE the Neanderthals NON-human? One thing is certain, if they were ANIMALS, then early humans engaged in widespread bestiality AND we are all part animal, per the amount of Neanderthal DNA. Of course, for evolutionists, this would garner no more than a shoulder shrug. For Christians, IF Neanderthals were ANIMALS, and if interbreeding resulted in significant percentages of Neanderthal DNA in humans, then this means the ancestral line leading from Adam to Christ likely included animal genetics - some form of hybridization. Of course, if we SEPARATE Adam and Eve's creations as having been SUBSEQUENT and SEPARATE from a potentially far earlier creation of man (and also consider them literally and instantly created - not the result of ancestral predecessors) then this lineage to Christ would not include Neanderthal/animal DNA. Of course, if the Neanderthal's were HUMANS, regardless of whether Adam and Eve were the very first ones - the animal DNA issue is mute. But is it not troubling to think Christ's lineage would have included animal DNA from a past of human bestiality practices?

Why would the animal DNA issue be mute?

Because animals can't talk?

Mute/moot.

Philip wrote:The huge question is WERE the Neanderthals NON-human? One thing is certain, if they were ANIMALS, then early humans engaged in widespread bestiality AND we are all part animal, per the amount of Neanderthal DNA. Of course, for evolutionists, this would garner no more than a shoulder shrug. For Christians, IF Neanderthals were ANIMALS, and if interbreeding resulted in significant percentages of Neanderthal DNA in humans, then this means the ancestral line leading from Adam to Christ likely included animal genetics - some form of hybridization. Of course, if we SEPARATE Adam and Eve's creations as having been SUBSEQUENT and SEPARATE from a potentially far earlier creation of man (and also consider them literally and instantly created - not the result of ancestral predecessors) then this lineage to Christ would not include Neanderthal/animal DNA. Of course, if the Neanderthal's were HUMANS, regardless of whether Adam and Eve were the very first ones - the animal DNA issue is mute. But is it not troubling to think Christ's lineage would have included animal DNA from a past of human bestiality practices?

Now we might get somewhere. This is the kind of discussion I've been trying to have in this thread.Come on bro,lets try to figure this out when it comes to Scripture,I think you're realizing the problems it can produce if we maybe have the wrong interpretation of scripture.I don't think we can fully understand God's creation without scripture and science. If we only have one or the other? We can't fully know about it. Of course though we must strive to have the correct interpretation of God's word and good scientific evidence.

A question -- are we assuming that the Bible is God's Word -- that there was a Real Garden of Eden? That there was a real world, wide flood with Noah and his family being the only people saved in the ark?

Do we believe that God is the all-powerful Being who is very capable of creating Adam and then Eve? And that they were indeed the 1st human beings on earth?

Okay -- where did the Neaderthals come from? Aren't they part of the evolutionary string of 'beings'' that gradually became more and more 'human'?

crochet1949 wrote:A question -- are we assuming that the Bible is God's Word -- that there was a Real Garden of Eden? That there was a real world, wide flood with Noah and his family being the only people saved in the ark?

Do we believe that God is the all-powerful Being who is very capable of creating Adam and then Eve? And that they were indeed the 1st human beings on earth?

Okay -- where did the Neaderthals come from? Aren't they part of the evolutionary string of 'beings'' that gradually became more and more 'human'?

This is something to consider from a biblical perspective.But there are other interpretations too and I'm trying to find out which is the best one according to the scientific evidence that both humans and neanderthals share DNA.How does our particular theory/ interpretation to scripture address this kind of evidence? I'd like to find the best theory/interpretation we have as Christians. At the same time though I'd rather have a bro in Christ discussion instead of links to a particular creation ministry. What say we as the body of Christ?

In light of your interpretation are you claiming that both humans and neanderthals mated with each other before the flood of Noah? Where does scripture say that happened? are just making up things? In light of the YEC interpretation could it be that it does not have to do with humans and neanderthals mating but Cain and Abel instead? Just a question. I'm not saying I agree yet,just trying to get us to think biblically about this scientific evidence.

Was just thinking -- there are Many kinds of people groups in various parts of the world. But -- they are Still People. People come in all sizes, shapes and colors -- but All are People. People have ability to learn languages and having ability to write / fingers. People go to schools, people have animals as pets, people take care of other people in hospitals, etc, people become vetenarians to take care of the animal world.

Observe life around us -- the differences between animals and people is So Obvious.

Another perspective -- back to your comments -- As for the DNA -- it has been shown - that DNA can be really close and yet the outer package look very different. It's been a Long time since I've studied that. The Bible doesn't deal with DNA. It Does deal with like species coming together naturally in nature and mating. The various kinds of animals were created 1st and then Adam and the Eve were made uniquely different. Adam was put in charge of naming the animals.

There were Nephilim on the earth, also. There is some question as to who they were. But they did exist -- possibly angels -- who mated with women and their off-spring were very strong and tall.

As for what does the body of Christ say? There are various subjects in the Bible that there will Always be disagreements about. And this is one of them.

The main things of Scripture that are Not up for debate -- the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He died on the cross for our sins and that He rose again bodily on the 3rd day. That each person is responsible for their own eternal home destination. Everyone Will end up either in heaven or in hell. No good works that we can do will ever qualify us to get to heaven on our own. It is through the blood of Christ.

The geneology of Adam is found in Genesis 5:5 says that Adam lived 930 yrs and he died. A person could have a LOT of kids over that many years. They could / apparently Did / get to know each other over the years as adults -- wouldn't be growing up together. So brothers and sisters and cousins Could marry and not have any problems.

Chapter 6 vs 2 that the sons of God saw the daughter of men, that they were beautiful and they took wives for themselves - as mentioned above - the very strong, renowned.

You say you want the best interpretation we have as Christians. Well -- some are strong on theistic evolution. It's an attempt to combine creation with evolution. The best interpretation is what the Bible says. After all it Is God's Word.

There are some key differences in the two Genesis Creation accounts. And, traditionally, the church has glued them together to assert they were speaking of the very same sequence of events. But an interesting question is, based ONLY on what the text says, that MIGHT not be the case. And I am coming at this question as one who does not believe man is a result of evolutionary processes. I believe the creation of Adam was instant/God creating him from the dust, and Eve being created from part of Adam. It is possible that the two accounts, when it comes to creating man, are not talking about the same thing. That is, FIRST, mankind is created by God. Then a period, however long, separates the later creation of Adam and Eve, as the scene described shifts to the Garden. It MIGHT be that Adam and Eve are the first creations of Christ's human lineage. This would explain a lot of the mass spread of civilization that archaeology reveals to going back MUCH FURTHER THAN THE TRADITIONAL DATES for Adam and Eve, and later, The Flood of Noah. And, pre-emptively, this could account for the geologic and archaeological record, that requires no "former world." There are challenges to this idea, but the text can logically support it! But tradition has always married the two accounts into one narrative.

The best interpretation is what the Bible says. After all it Is God's Word.

What the Bible says is God's word - is NOT AN INTERPRETATION! How we individually parse the meaning of Scripture is what is interpretation. Take, for instance, the Nephalim - no one knows for CERTAIN what they were. Yet various people interpret them to be this or that. The fact that some - even many - things in God's word are mysterious. And because we can't perfectly know or understand all He has communicated, we are forced to leave ourselves open to some range of interpretations, knowing fully well that one or NONE of them might be correct, while also knowing that there IS a definitive truth that only God knows.