Evidence for God from Science

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:To address Abel's claim on the first page , which I assume he's referencing on the op, let me state the following.

We did not have a constant rate of birth, you cannot use the rate of birth and population to determine the age of our species. As shown below it makes no sense.
Population has boomed in the last century due to the Haber process, which has dramatically changed the earth's ability to sustain population; therefore it is impossible to calculate a consistent rate of population incline. (to 7 billion)

You could, however, calculate human population to an extent before the 19th century. This dealing with historical records, fossil records, estimation for death from disease, AND the type of society prevalent at that time ( I.E hunter and gatherer, farming et cetera. )

We can actually estimate the population of a society, such as Egypt, using the historical records/archeology of its agricultural development. But this is aside the point, just fun info.

Everything including history is looked at from an evolution perspective eventhough not one scientist has proven,showed or demonstrated life evolves,they go back billions of years and keep life living even through extinction events for the sake of evolution,they claim this world has gone on continually for billions of years and it is fulfilled bible prophecy that this would be taught in the last days and it is being taught today which is why you believe it

2nd Peter 3:3-7 told us that in the last days mockers would come saying Where is the promise of his coming?"for since the fathers died all things continue as they were from the beginning" and it goes on to tell us this is not true,there was a gap that is overlooked between the former world that existed and this world,it tells us the former world perished in water inwhich both the heavens and earth was flooded and that this is overlooked.

This flood is often said to be Noah's flood but only the earth was flooded in Noah's flood and this world did not perish so we go to Genesis 1 because the earth and heavens are flooded but restored to sustain this world.This world was created about 6000 years ago but we must not overlook the former world that perished inwhich all life in it died and there was a gap of time and this is what the evidence in the earth proves not life evolves.

So unless you can prove,show or demonstrate scientifically life evolves there is no reason to look at the history of the earth from an evolution perspective like science has keeping it going for billions of years because of this belief life evolves.

Now you may say I don't believe the bible over science but you believe this world has gone on continuously for billions of years with no gap because of what science teaches today because of evolution,according to the bible this is wrong,there was a gap of time between the former world and this world.

OK now we are in this world and can't overlook Noah's flood that effected this world since Adam and Eve.We must account for it too biblically.

Now on the one hand you say the population cannot be calculated yet say it can be now which I don't buy but in the calculations I used they are very conservative calculations which makes it viable,the population growth rate is about 3.5 children per family world wide but noticed iin my calculations we used 2.5 children per famiily,you see the population could not grow because of death if we went below 2.5 children .5 allows for slow growth despite death and if you go back 4300 years ago and come up to today we should have about 7 billion humans today using very conservative calculations.

Also if we leveled out the earth's surface that makes the oceans so deep the whole earth would be flooded over the tallest mountains on land right now.This would make Noah's flood not so impossible like bible skeptics claim,for it shows there is enough water for a global flood.

One of the main issues with the Global flood in terms of population base is that IF the flood was indeed Global AND all humans died except the 8 on the ark, then ALL human life ( we won't even get to the issue of animal life) would have had to come from them and spread to the different continents like Australia and the Americas and so forth.
And would have had to that within just a few generations, traveling in mass from the ANE to all over the globe, transatlantic and pacific migration.

I found where this is coming from. http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=3840

By the way, reading through your last post you seemed to have missed a few concepts/been confused on a few that I pointed out. It may clarify to re-read.

This man knows what he's doing is absurd. He's assuming his variables without explanation, he's not taking into account sustainability of different time periods, he hardly takes any consideration (granted he does) of events that wiped out a good portion of our population, he's not taking into account the prevalence of cultures and their population sustainability, he's not taking into account the medical advancement of different societies at one time that can lead to successful birth, he's assuming that women in every society had about 2.5 babies, and he's (purposely) forgetting that for most of human history we were hunter gatherers and our population did not probably exceed 50k for about 400k years.

PaulSacramento wrote:One of the main issues with the Global flood in terms of population base is that IF the flood was indeed Global AND all humans died except the 8 on the ark, then ALL human life ( we won't even get to the issue of animal life) would have had to come from them and spread to the different continents like Australia and the Americas and so forth.
And would have had to that within just a few generations, traveling in mass from the ANE to all over the globe, transatlantic and pacific migration.

We've seen this solved with high speed tectonics and hyperevolution.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:The flood story is one of the bible's built in fallacies. One of many, one of many reasons its
not a credible or particularly interesting book.

Is it the story of the YEC interpretation of it?

What I said was on the absolute side, and I kinda regret it. I like to make a more nuanced statement than that.

The book interests a great many people, and I myself read it thru twice.

Parts of it are good reading, quite interesting.

I am tho puzzled by the many claims / claimants to the true reading. Some say that god gives them the power to get it right, others talk of deep scholarship... you know.

But there are so many polar opposite opinions! And then every shade between, too.

But to answer the q, yes, that would be yec readings that are plainly fallacy.

And I can respect that view since I myself held that view ( and still do to a certain extent).
See, the issue of the bible being divinely inspired is one that has been debated through the ages.
NOT that it IS inspired mind you But what "inspired' exactly means and what parts.

Some only view the inspired parts as those in which God is said to be speaking directly - What the prophets related, the words of Christ, etc.
Some point out that Paul said that the scriptures ARE inspired BUT note that He made an explicit comment in regards to what they are to be used for:

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Note he mentions nothing of scientific or even historical accuracy per say but is addressing morals, ethics and Theology.


One can never remove from the bible the reality that it is a collection of books, letters, prophetic readings, poetry and history and stories and that they are all desgined to impart certain values and views.
We can also never forget that the bible was NOT written TO us BUT it was written FOR Us, so we must read with the cultural understanding of the people that the various writings were directed to or else our interpretations will be faulty or even worse.

For sure it is those things in bold, I see it also as the collected folk wisdom of a people.

It is so unreasonable to say things like "literal or lie", "disprove the bible", etc.

Tho some I guess see it as a necessarily cohesive whole, such that the least error
would be like a pinprick to a taut balloon.

Im pretty sure that is it, as we see this same "all or nothing" in so many people, who simply cannot ever admit they got the least thing wrong, minor and peripheral as it may be.

PaulSacramento wrote:One of the main issues with the Global flood in terms of population base is that IF the flood was indeed Global AND all humans died except the 8 on the ark, then ALL human life ( we won't even get to the issue of animal life) would have had to come from them and spread to the different continents like Australia and the Americas and so forth.
And would have had to that within just a few generations, traveling in mass from the ANE to all over the globe, transatlantic and pacific migration.

Paul, this isn't an issue for only a global flood. A typical PC local flood has all of humanity in one area. Then humanity would have to have spread over the globe from there.

I guess there is a difference between YEC and PC though. YEC seems to be restricted to a much shorter period of time, for humanity to disperse. Thousands of years, as opposed to maybe hundreds of thousands, as PC allows.

I wonder why its so hard for some people to allow for a God who can make organisms capable of responding to their environment instead of having to keep popping in for yet another tweak.

To jac:

Spending all my nights, all my money, goin' out on the town
Doin' anything just to get you off of my mind
But when the morning comes, I'm right back where I started again
And tryin' to forget you is just a waste of time

Baby come back, any kind of fool could see
There was something in everything about you
Baby come back, you can blame it all on me
I was wrong and I just can't live without you

All day long, wearing a mask of false bravado
Tryin' to keep up a smile that hides the tears
But as the sun goes down, I get that empty feeling again
How I wish to God that you were here

Baby come back, any kind of fool could see
There was something in everything about you
Baby come back, you can blame it all on me
I was wrong and I just can't live without you

Now that I put it all together
Give me the chance to make you see
Have you used up all the love in your heart?
Nothing left for me, is there nothing left for me?

Baby come back, any kind of fool could see
There was something in everything about you
Baby come back, you can blame it all on me
(Listen, baby)
I was wrong and I just can't live without you
I was wrong and I just can't live

Baby come back, any kind of fool could see
There was something in everything about you
Baby come back, you can blame it all on me
I was wrong and I just can't live without you

Audie wrote:I wonder why its so hard for some people to allow for a God who can make organisms capable of responding to their environment instead of having to keep popping in for yet another tweak.

Audie,

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, it's not an issue of not allowing God to be able to do that. I just think it wasn't done that way. I also have no problem believing that God could've created everything in 6 twenty four hour days. I just don't think He did it that way either.

To put it as simple as possible, I think God introduced new life over the billions of years of life's history on earth. Each time he introduced new life, it was life that was suited to the conditions of the earth at the time.

"allow for" not "allow"

And, let's not forget - God didn't just merely create and then TWEAK the systems of the universe and biological life, but He controls them (that does not mean we do not have truly free will, albeit within certain parameters - we can't fly, can't escape physics). He has a purpose to ALL He has created and Scripture teaches He knew every detail of how history will turn out because 1) He saw it; 2) He controls it; 3) It will turn out precisely as He so desires. God doesn't merely "tweak" anything. He is sovereign in EVERY parameter of ever place, thing and person. God's not just sitting around vicariously or passively watching and waiting to see how the universe's and the world's history will turn out. That's why it's called HIStory! He is the Author from the first paragraph until "The End."

Philip wrote:And, let's not forget - God didn't just merely create and then TWEAK the systems of the universe and biological life, but He controls them (that does not mean we do not have truly free will, albeit within certain parameters - we can't fly, can't escape physics). He has a purpose to ALL He has created and Scripture teaches He knew every detail of how history will turn out because 1) He saw it; 2) He controls it; 3) It will turn out precisely as He so desires. God doesn't merely "tweak" anything. He is sovereign in EVERY parameter of ever place, thing and person. That's why it's called HIStory!

Respectfully rejects this.

Audie: Respectfully rejects this.

But why?

And, just for the sake of argument, which would be more loving? A God who just watches a purposeless, often-brutal and evil-filled survival of the fittest/Darwinian repercussions, letting it drag out as it will, or a God whom has purpose in what is happening and Whom wants a glorious eternity for those willing to love Him BACK?

Philip wrote:

Audie: Respectfully rejects this.

But why?

And, just for the sake of argument, which would be more loving? A God who just watches a purposeless, often-brutal and evil-filled survival of the fittest/Darwinian repercussions, letting it drag out as it will, or a God whom has purpose in what is happening and Whom wants a glorious eternity for those willing to love Him BACK?

Im not in a mood for that topic now, I will look at it later.

But I see the world as amoral and "love" as meaningless except
for where people manage to generate points of light.

I think the good in people is our own doing, and, fortunately
good comes out ahead by enough margin to keep us going and give
hope.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:I wonder why its so hard for some people to allow for a God who can make organisms capable of responding to their environment instead of having to keep popping in for yet another tweak.

Audie,

I can't speak for everyone, but for me, it's not an issue of not allowing God to be able to do that. I just think it wasn't done that way. I also have no problem believing that God could've created everything in 6 twenty four hour days. I just don't think He did it that way either.

To put it as simple as possible, I think God introduced new life over the billions of years of life's history on earth. Each time he introduced new life, it was life that was suited to the conditions of the earth at the time.

God should have just created everything necessary in an instant and then walked away.
Where's HappyFlappyDiest? Oh, serenading Jac.