Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: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.

See I like these kinds of discussions and you brought up something that I have gone over before in my mind and it is this.You said that you think Noah's flood could account for the geologic and archeological record and it is possible but the thing that sricks out to me is the amount of death and excrinction in the earth that according to science tells us the earth is billions of years old,however I'm not sure I trust them because they look at everything from an evolution view point and they expanded it from millions of years to billions of years to give life enough time to evolve. As you may know it was mostly Christians who started modern science that discovered the earth was millions of years old and this was before evolution became a scientific theory. So I tend to trust these Christians but the bottom line is the earth is old and it is much,much older than the bible indicates if we go by Ussher's Chronology which I believe is right but the YEC interpretation is wrong.

But how do we explain so much death and extinction in the earth before God created and made the life he did in Genesis 1? And how would this apply to both humans and neanderthals sharing DNA? You think you have it tough? We Gap creationists have a Gap to get over and explain it while ya'll don't.

ACB: You said that you think Noah's flood could account for the geologic and archeological record.

No, ACB, you've misunderstood me. I DON'T think the flood explains the geological and archaeological record! What I'm saying is that those records are compatible with a possibly far earlier creation of mankind, and then a later one of Adam and Eve / Christ's line. I don't hold to the flood explaining all of the geology.

Philip wrote:ACB: You said that you think Noah's flood could account for the geologic and archeological record.

No, ACB, you've misunderstood me. I DON'T think the flood explains the geological and archaeological record! What I'm saying is that those records are compatible with a possibly far earlier creation of mankind, and then a later one of Adam and Eve / Christ's line. I don't hold to the flood explaining all of the geology.

Sorry for misunderstanding you I think I know what you're saying and I tend to agree.I have thought that it could make sense to realize in Genesis 1 God created all of the races at that time both male and female and then in Genesis 2 he creates Adam and Eve because this is the race Jesus would eventually be born through. But even if we go with this interpretation? I think we still have time to deal with time depending on which interpretation we go by though and I'm not sure how it addresses the human/neanderthal DNA evidence.

ACB: I think we still have time to deal with time depending on which interpretation we go by though and I'm not sure how it addresses the human/neanderthal DNA evidence.

One way of looking at the evidence is that mankind (created well BEFORE Adam and Eve) was intermixed with animal blood - IF, or course - Neanderthals are not human. I'm not convinced they were not, despite some apparent variations. And so, subsequently totally independently, Christ's line - is (instantly) created, starting with Adam and Eve - which would not have had the Neanderthal blood. And so this would explain the range of man's spread, and account for how civilization would appear to be FAR older than theorized dates for Adam and Eve's creation. It also is non-problematic for the geologic evidences of great ages for the earth - which are whatever they are. In the Genesis sequence, the animals are completed first - independent of and before man. I'd encourage everyone thinking about this possibility to go back and read the two Genesis accounts while trying to block out what each does NOT say, as well as try to ignore what you know that the church has traditionally thought on this subject. What you'll see is that the collective texts could support Adam and Eve being independently created sometime (maybe a VERY long time) after God initially created mankind.

I don't think one can do much more than theorize about the above. But I also don't think anyone can definitely say the scenario I bring up is definitely untrue. It's a mystery. But my proposed scenario eliminates all of the archaeological gymnastics necessary to explain the "apparent" spread of mankind beyond its parameters typically tossed about - especially in regards to supposed dates for Adam and Eve, or those asserting "the archaeological record merely APPEARS as it does due to flood dynamics." So much about the Bible, when it comes to man, he's gotten wrong. All those rabbis and others so diligently poured over Scripture, what they surmised about the Messiah to come - what He would do, what His immediate mission would be. Jesus shows up, confounds everyone's expectations - even those sincerely immersed in the OT. God creates the truth of things, man interprets what he thinks he understands from the partial facts given. It's a pattern! And whether we look backward or forward into details unknown, the results usually reveal how clueless we can be.

I was just looking up Nephalim again -- Wiki -- used in different ways in Scripture. Fallen angels, giants, etc. The fact is that they Did exist. And, yes, some things in God's Word Are mysterious.

No one is Forced to leave ourselves open to some range of interpretations knowing that none might be correct. We Can make decisions as to what we Choose To believe. An example -- the virgin birth of Christ. No one really understands how the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and impregnated her. Because it isn't biologically possible people laugh at it and throw it out. Well -- God's word Is Truth -- it's what is called a miracle. It only happened once in history. It's necessary -- it's how God planned for His Son, Jesus Christ, to enter this world. When He was on this earth, He stated that He and the Father are One.

And, yes, there Is a definitive truth -- Jesus Christ tells us "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, but through Me."

"Thou shalt not commit adultery' Part of the Ten Commandments. So - what are we Not to do? What is adultery? Having That knowledge - we have a choice -- do it or Not do it. And there Will be a result of our actions.

Thou shalt not steal -- pretty straight forward, also. What is stealing? why shouldn't we do it? It's our choice to do it or not. Also consequences.

Also the Genesis creation -- Genesis means 'beginnings' -- God tells us that He created everything.

You're saying that we don't know how long Adam and Eve existed Before being put in the Garden? There is also a thought that God created the earth with the Appearance of Age. Adam and Eve were created being able to have children. They were Not created as babies needing special care. So -- the appearance of age -- but they were created as people. Not evolving Into what people are today. So -- I Could agree with you. But I don't believe there are two separate accounts. I think simply expanding more details.

Hope this is making sense. I'm actually combining two other posts into this. Or trying to and making sense in the process.

Here my above post's scenario is explored by a Hebrew scholar: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -research/ He's not welded to it, but is trying to strip the meanings down to only what the text actually reveals.

Philip wrote:

ACB: I think we still have time to deal with time depending on which interpretation we go by though and I'm not sure how it addresses the human/neanderthal DNA evidence.

One way of looking at the evidence is that mankind (created well BEFORE Adam and Eve)

There is evidence that mankind was "created"?

DNA code just created itself?

Philip wrote:DNA code just created itself?

Your non-response is loaded with tendentious vocab.

I do not accept your use of the word "create", deliberately chosen as "craeted" things must perforce have a creator.

Can you just say "DNA" without inserting the word "code" with it, so that you can imply more than you can deliver?

Given the abundance of self assembling molecules of divers sorts, I dont think it unreasonable to believe it possible for DNA to be the end product of a number of
steps that took place entirely without any intelligent intervention.

Now, as for my question that you sidestepped, do you think human beings were
just "created", like poof, here they are, fully assembled?

Just asking, I wont press you to defend the indefensible with the evidence that I asked for, knowing you do not have any.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:DNA code just created itself?

Your non-response is loaded with tendentious vocab.

I do not accept your use of the word "create", deliberately chosen as "craeted" things must perforce have a creator.

Can you just say "DNA" without inserting the word "code" with it, so that you can imply more than you can deliver?

Given the abundance of self assembling molecules of divers sorts, I dont think it unreasonable to believe it possible for DNA to be the end product of a number of
steps that took place entirely without any intelligent intervention.

Now, as for my question that you sidestepped, do you think human beings were
just "created", like poof, here they are, fully assembled?

Just asking, I wont press you to defend the indefensible with the evidence that I asked for, knowing you do not have any.

Audie: Given the abundance of self assembling molecules of divers sorts, I dont think it unreasonable to believe it possible for DNA to be the end product of a number ofsteps that took place entirely without any intelligent intervention.

How do you know they "self-assembled?" How did they come INTO EXISTENCE to begin with? Do I believe Adam and Eve were created - of course. It that any more miraculous than EVERY known physical thing and an immense universe, all of which did not physically exist, moments before, and then moments later they did - all from some inexplicably small space? You believe one is possible, but not the other. Strange. And either the first was created or not. It did not create itself! It did not design and organize itself. If you believe that - you might as well throw out all of your science books!

Philip wrote:

How do you know they "self-assembled?

"

Read for content sometimes. I did not say I know that DNA self assembled.

How did they come INTO EXISTENCE to begin with?

The molecules, or the component parts?

Do I believe Adam and Eve were created - of course.

Ok, poof, just like that, from "dust". You referred to evidence earlier, but have not delivered, as I knew you would not.

It that any more miraculous than EVERY known physical thing and an immense universe, all of which did not physically exist, moments before, and then moments later they did - all from some inexplicably small space? You believe one is possible, but not the other. Strange

We have "Godwin" for people who always end up with a comparison to Hitler, and
we have those like you, thick as hairs on a dogs back in this forum, for whom every topic is about the origin of the universe.

You believe one is possible, but not the other. Strange

Such a belief might well be strange, if they were in any reasonable way comparable other than any actual science involved (as opposed to "philosoph6y" and the "bible") shows that
people were not just poofed into existence and there is science for the big bang, tho its not a topic that much interests me.

And either the first was created or not. It did not create itself!

I am accustomed to the binary thinking of Christians, but this is an interesting variant,
the pseudo-binary.

There are a couple of other things strange, one is how in today's world where there is actual access to information so many people bitterly cling to their superstitions; another is how you are so at ease with your own acts of creation,

Among those would be the facts about me that you poof into existence.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:DNA code just created itself?

Your non-response is loaded with tendentious vocab.

I do not accept your use of the word "create", deliberately chosen as "craeted" things must perforce have a creator.

Can you just say "DNA" without inserting the word "code" with it, so that you can imply more than you can deliver?

Given the abundance of self assembling molecules of divers sorts, I dont think it unreasonable to believe it possible for DNA to be the end product of a number of
steps that took place entirely without any intelligent intervention.

Now, as for my question that you sidestepped, do you think human beings were
just "created", like poof, here they are, fully assembled?

Just asking, I wont press you to defend the indefensible with the evidence that I asked for, knowing you do not have any.

did you pick that photo because you cant find an image to go with "that went over my head"?

there is science for the big bang, tho its not a topic that much interests me.

Yeah, I can see why it doesn't interest you, as it cannot be scientifically explained - which would be too much of a binary type of thinking. You'd rather ignore that all of your talk about random things without an intelligent Cause behind them because you know there is no scientific explanation to them. Really, Audie, you must admit that all your code word "non-binary" means is the answer is lies somewhere BEFORE science and within the realm of unexplained metaphysics. Saying science explains the Big Bang - um, where did you read where science EXPLAINS it???!!! It talks about the PROCESSES, but only theorizes as to whatever unknown cause. And that FIRST cause could not have been created - not the ULTIMATE and first cause. And that first cause must be infinite, else it could not have always existed, as it must be and always was independent of ALL other and subsequent things. It must be unfathomably intelligent and powerful - which is obvious, considering what immediately came into physical existence, the design and functionality of it all, immediately apparent, on such an astonishing scale, of such immense power. These things are as far from what you would describe as "random" as one could possibly imagine! And failing to admit it, asserting there are scientific explanations - these won't make them so. "Pop Metaphysics" is not science! It's not only not science, but if defies all known logic. How can this be? Unless...

Let's be clear: BINARY thinking is using logic and belief in science and processes, that all things must have a cause. NON-Binary thinking is belief that some untold aspects of metaphysics are possible, in which some key source could/must self-exist with great power and intelligence. So, while I believe in the laws and processes of science, order, design, and functions consistently and redundantly proven, I realize that it all must have a cause. It's just that I realize that binary processes are all dependent on something beyond all binary things (yes, ultimately, NON-binary). Of course, Audie does as well - she just doesn't know who or what that is and won't accept that it is God. So, non-binary thinking is belief that metaphysical things are possible without a cause - that it or they can self-exist, uncreated, unsustained, can build and harness intelligence and power, randomly, without cause. Wow! And it ultimately doesn't matter - that is, UNLESS she is wrong.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:DNA code just created itself?

Your non-response is loaded with tendentious vocab.

I do not accept your use of the word "create", deliberately chosen as "craeted" things must perforce have a creator.

Can you just say "DNA" without inserting the word "code" with it, so that you can imply more than you can deliver?

Given the abundance of self assembling molecules of divers sorts, I dont think it unreasonable to believe it possible for DNA to be the end product of a number of
steps that took place entirely without any intelligent intervention.

Now, as for my question that you sidestepped, do you think human beings were
just "created", like poof, here they are, fully assembled?

Just asking, I wont press you to defend the indefensible with the evidence that I asked for, knowing you do not have any.

did you pick that photo because you cant find an image to go with "that went over my head"?

Dang it! Clicked the like by accident.

I picked that photo, because after reading your post, neither a single nor double face palm did your post any justice.