Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd place the flood between 40-50k ago before humanity spread out upon the face of all the earth. The world at that time was destroyed by a flood. (2 Peter 3:6)

Humanity had spread out over most of Africa before the little group that would eventually populate the other continents set off, well before the invention of boats or the domestication of animals.

Yes, and? Except domestication animals, or perhaps you mean animal husbandry? Either way, animals are easily domesticated, especially if you're a creature with intelligence to work the land and depend upon such for survival.

Audie, notice you didn't respond to anything substantial. You consider yourself spposedly rational and all scientifically inclined, but if there is anything to such it just amounts to a snarky subjective heap of pretentiousness. You should just keep your claws retracted, you'd present better.

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd place the flood between 40-50k ago before humanity spread out upon the face of all the earth. The world at that time was destroyed by a flood. (2 Peter 3:6)

Humanity had spread out over most of Africa before the little group that would eventually populate the other continents set off, well before the invention of boats or the domestication of animals.

Yes, and? Except domestication animals, or perhaps you mean animal husbandry? Either way, animals are easily domesticated, especially if you're a creature with intelligence to work the land and depend upon such for survival.

Audie, notice you didn't respond to anything substantial. You consider yourself spposedly rational and all scientifically inclined, but if there is anything to such it just amounts to a snarky subjective heap of pretentiousness. You should just keep your claws retracted, you'd present better.

I asked substantive questions of your theory, which you ignored or blew off with non answers.

Distinctions w/o difference are also without sunstance. Its petty and demeaning of yourself to offer such or pretend its sarcastic to point it out.

If as appears the case you've nothing but bible reading to base your theory on, making no claims calling for data you dont have would
avoid further pretense, And any threat to male ego, when challenged.

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd place the flood between 40-50k ago before humanity spread out upon the face of all the earth. The world at that time was destroyed by a flood. (2 Peter 3:6)

Humanity had spread out over most of Africa before the little group that would eventually populate the other continents set off, well before the invention of boats or the domestication of animals.

Yes, and?

If the flood was 40-50k years ago, before humanity spread out of Africa, there were nevertheless people all over Africa, so the 'local flood' would have had to cover all of Africa in order to kill them all. Is that what you understand?

Except domestication animals, or perhaps you mean animal husbandry?

No; I mean before any any animals were domesticated or any boats had been built. The story of Noah clearly predicates some kind of pastoral or agricultural way of life, which had not developed anywhere by 40k years ago.

Either way, animals are easily domesticated, especially if you're a creature with intelligence to work the land and depend upon such for survival.

They are, but there is no evidence that they were, until much later than 40k years ago.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd place the flood between 40-50k ago before humanity spread out upon the face of all the earth. The world at that time was destroyed by a flood. (2 Peter 3:6)

Humanity had spread out over most of Africa before the little group that would eventually populate the other continents set off, well before the invention of boats or the domestication of animals.

Yes, and?

If the flood was 40-50k years ago, before humanity spread out of Africa, there were nevertheless people all over Africa, so the 'local flood' would have had to cover all of Africa in order to kill them all. Is that what you understand?

Except domestication animals, or perhaps you mean animal husbandry?

No; I mean before any any animals were domesticated or any boats had been built. The story of Noah clearly predicates some kind of pastoral or agricultural way of life, which had not developed anywhere by 40k years ago.

Either way, animals are easily domesticated, especially if you're a creature with intelligence to work the land and depend upon such for survival.

They are, but there is no evidence that they were, until much later than 40k years ago.

Any one of those would falsify the 40 k thing if it were a theory.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd place the flood between 40-50k ago before humanity spread out upon the face of all the earth. The world at that time was destroyed by a flood. (2 Peter 3:6)

Humanity had spread out over most of Africa before the little group that would eventually populate the other continents set off, well before the invention of boats or the domestication of animals.

Yes, and?

If the flood was 40-50k years ago, before humanity spread out of Africa, there were nevertheless people all over Africa, so the 'local flood' would have had to cover all of Africa in order to kill them all. Is that what you understand?

I invite you to put on the table what you believe Hugh re: modern humanities origins. Timings, Neaderthal-human relationships, etc. You seem very confident in your knowledge, give me something, I'm open to re-education but I fear things aren't as certain here as you might believe.

hughfarey wrote:

Except domestication animals, or perhaps you mean animal husbandry?

No; I mean before any any animals were domesticated or any boats had been built. The story of Noah clearly predicates some kind of pastoral or agricultural way of life, which had not developed anywhere by 40k years ago.

Either way, animals are easily domesticated, especially if you're a creature with intelligence to work the land and depend upon such for survival.

They are, but there is no evidence that they were, until much later than 40k years ago.

You're grasping straws Hugh with the animal thing. It's not a stretch to think humanity would have easily domesticated animals as soon as they came onto the scene as a matter of survival. In fact, I think it foolishness to think otherwise given human intelligence. The burden of proof, I think is on you to show humans wouldn't naturally domesticate animals.

Re: boats, you know the ark wasn't a boat right?! Not in modern sense. Consider the ark of the covenant. It was a container, a vessel intended to contain contents. God's presence is said to have resided upon such. In Scripture, it's said God was also the one who sealed Noah's ark. What is important to the narrative surrounding Noah is that God made a covenant with him and his family, and Noah faithfully obeyed God doing as said, and God did the rest. It was God who shut them in (Gen 7:16 KJV), so you know, there was a bit of God involved in the process (heaven forbid Christianity include God right!?)

The interesting thing about this Hugh, is the Bible is full of the miraculous, Christianity is full of God involving Himself in human affairs, in particular Israel's, and then with Christ who was and is God, the resurrection and the miracles that followed the Apostles and which enabled Christian to spread despite the persecutions early on. You cannot naturalize everything and still be Christian. In doing so, you also logically reject the very foundations which gives what we consider to be "natural laws" their structure and predictability -- God.

Understand Paul's words that the carnal cannot accept spiritual things, and indeed, God's enclosing the ark was likely a spiritual act, just like the angels who lead Israel out of Egypt of spiritual, indeed our being born again in Christ is spiritual. You are so entangled in the carnal Hugh, that you are unable to shed it.

Paul said that, "your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Cor 2:5) Understand, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor 2:14) What are you missing? Is it any wonder, as you say, people question your Christianity?

I'm not blind, I'm fully aware we are into an age where Naturalism more-so Materialism reigns. It won't last, it'll come and go as a fad, and indeed it is already dying when I scout leading thinkers of our time and lay people are catching up. Yet, many Christians since Darwin's time, including Darwin, sought to reconcile God with nature, and nature's viciousness and apparent indiscriminate nature. Interventions of God became unthinkable, and yet, if God doesn't intervene at all then I guarantee you none of us have any hope with our Maker. The best we might hope for is that God cares so little about us, that we will let us fade into oblivion at death.

Furthermore, belief in God, and indeed Christ, is arrived at going forward. Yet, with scoffers like Audie here, they attack the end bits and pieces ignoring that they have no real foundations to anything that they accept about reality. They have no real justifications for anything they accept in life. They're just an insignificant speck in the world which somehow became aware and will pass on by out of existence, nothing important at all. If you want to be like them, then join their club Hugh and don't half-**** or be around the bush with your supremacist Naturalist-Christianity however you reconcile such.

So then, to lay out a basic framework for accepting God's intervention throughout history... I'm sure you are aware, that many strong logical arguments exist for God, and that is easy I think to arrive at. Otherwise I dare say you'd not even care to hang onto any belief in God whatsoever. The next step going forward is whether this God is is personal? If God isn't personal, then God doesn't care what happens, but just created for no real reason except for the sake of it. In which case, there is nothing more between God and us to be had.

Yet, in the world there is much good and beauty. If "evil" in the world in an argument against a good God, then the reverse (modus tollens form) must equally be evidence for a good God. Which is it? It can't be both. We've already reached the conclusion of God's existence based on other arguments, so it isn't logical to here just deny because we witness both and that God doesn't intervene to stop the bad, that God doesn't exist or care after David Hume. No, if we witness good in the world, indeed can experience love and see much beauty, such shows God does care. The intended design is for us to be born into families, nurtured and raised. So reaching the conclusion that God is personal seems to be an easy step.

Now, what's next? If God is personal then we ought to expect God would make Himself known to us, that God should have have revealed Himself... and interestingly, monotheism all seems to point to Israel's God. Right? We don't have many options here. And then, furthermore, we shouldn't be at all surprised to find this God injecting Himself into the world and intervening here and there. Only blanket acceptance of Materialism would say otherwise, and yet the fog of materialism is thick and it may make you feel stupid for accepting something like Christ's resurrection, or say shutting up Noah's vessel and keeping all within safe -- yet, there is nothing otherwise truly absurd or illogical about such. What is the height of absurdity, is a belief that everything exists in a vacuum and is hung up upon nothing at all.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd place the flood between 40-50k ago before humanity spread out upon the face of all the earth. The world at that time was destroyed by a flood. (2 Peter 3:6)

Humanity had spread out over most of Africa before the little group that would eventually populate the other continents set off, well before the invention of boats or the domestication of animals.

Yes, and? Except domestication animals, or perhaps you mean animal husbandry? Either way, animals are easily domesticated, especially if you're a creature with intelligence to work the land and depend upon such for survival.

Audie, notice you didn't respond to anything substantial. You consider yourself spposedly rational and all scientifically inclined, but if there is anything to such it just amounts to a snarky subjective heap of pretentiousness. You should just keep your claws retracted, you'd present better.

I asked substantive questions of your theory, which you ignored or blew off with non answers.

Distinctions w/o difference are also without sunstance. Its petty and demeaning of yourself to offer such or pretend its sarcastic to point it out.

If as appears the case you've nothing but bible reading to base your theory on, making no claims calling for data you dont have would
avoid further pretense, And any threat to male ego, when challenged.

Are you still talking... Male ego? Challenged? You give yourself too much credit and seems can't handle half of what you dish out to others on the board here. Your kite is way down the sewer it seems. Speaking of theories, you have no theory, no foundation, for anything you accept as important Audie, let alone any basis for what you accept as real.

I've already said you can use Google, but perhaps I thought too much of your abilities. After all, you find it most difficult to properly quote people, and that isn't all too hard to get right really.

In any case, here's a rather detailed page of many flood myths, not all similar in detail, but then many share interesting correlations to the Noah story. Is it or isn't sensible to believe there is a "real" behind the shared commonalities of similar sounding myths? Nothing but Bible reading, please space me your stupid comments.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'd place the flood between 40-50k ago before humanity spread out upon the face of all the earth. The world at that time was destroyed by a flood. (2 Peter 3:6)

Humanity had spread out over most of Africa before the little group that would eventually populate the other continents set off, well before the invention of boats or the domestication of animals.

Yes, and? Except domestication animals, or perhaps you mean animal husbandry? Either way, animals are easily domesticated, especially if you're a creature with intelligence to work the land and depend upon such for survival.

Audie, notice you didn't respond to anything substantial. You consider yourself spposedly rational and all scientifically inclined, but if there is anything to such it just amounts to a snarky subjective heap of pretentiousness. You should just keep your claws retracted, you'd present better.

I asked substantive questions of your theory, which you ignored or blew off with non answers.

Distinctions w/o difference are also without sunstance. Its petty and demeaning of yourself to offer such or pretend its sarcastic to point it out.

If as appears the case you've nothing but bible reading to base your theory on, making no claims calling for data you dont have would
avoid further pretense, And any threat to male ego, when challenged.

Are you still talking... Male ego? Challenged? You give yourself too much credit and seems can't handle half of what you dish out to others on the board here. Your kite is way down the sewer it seems. Speaking of theories, you have no theory, no foundation, for anything you accept as important Audie, let alone any basis for what you accept as real.

I've already said you can use Google, but perhaps I thought too much of your abilities. After all, you find it most difficult to properly quote people, and that isn't all too hard to get right really.

In any case, here's a rather detailed page of many flood myths, not all similar in detail, but then many share interesting correlations to the Noah story. Is it or isn't sensible to believe there is a "real" behind the shared commonalities of similar sounding myths? Nothing but Bible reading, please space me your stupid comments.

Sorry to see you this way. All is forgiven when you get past whatever
that is really about.

Kurieuo wrote:I invite you to put on the table what you believe Hugh re: modern humanities origins. Timings, Neaderthal-human relationships, etc. You seem very confident in your knowledge, give me something, I'm open to re-education but I fear things aren't as certain here as you might believe.

The Wikipedia article on the Palaeolithic sums up the current state of thinking, including all the uncertainties, quite well. For numerous papers on the relationship between modern man and Neanderthals, I recommend putting "Palaeolithic Neanderthals" into Google Scholar. Mellars - "Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe" would be a good start.

hughfarey wrote:You're grasping straws Hugh with the animal thing. It's not a stretch to think humanity would have easily domesticated animals as soon as they came onto the scene as a matter of survival. In fact, I think it foolishness to think otherwise given human intelligence. The burden of proof, I think is on you to show humans wouldn't naturally domesticate animals.

No, that's not how science works. Your thinking this or that is foolishness is not science. The domestication of animals results in archaeological and genetic evidence which is wholly lacking before about 15000BC. If you want to understand more about the domestication of animals, try putting "Domestication of goats" or any other animal into Google Scholar, and read some of the papers published in Nature or similar journals. You could begin with
Zeder - "The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago."

boats, you know the ark wasn't a boat right?!

And you think I'm grasping at straws!

Consider the ark of the covenant. It was a container, a vessel intended to contain contents. God's presence is said to have resided upon such.

Yes. A boat is also a vessel intended to contain contents, plus it must also be designed to float on water. Really Kureiou, to deny that Noah's ark was a boat is pushing philology beyond its limits.

You cannot naturalize everything and still be Christian.

I can. I do. By what authority do you tell me I can't? Your own personal interpretation of scripture may be very worthy and well intentioned, but I think it's wrong. Elsewhere on recent threads I have elaborated to the best of my admittedly meagre theological understanding on the "naturalness" of God, so I won't repeat it all, but it is no less Christian than your own version, and has the bonus of cohering to the current theology of the major Christian divisions. You are, of course, at liberty to work out your own route to salvation, but to imagine that yours is valid and mine is not is unjustified without rather more than personal conviction as evidence.

I'm not blind, I'm fully aware we are into an age where Naturalism more-so Materialism reigns. It won't last, it'll come and go as a fad, and indeed it is already dying when I scout leading thinkers of our time and lay people are catching up. Yet, many Christians since Darwin's time, including Darwin, sought to reconcile God with nature, and nature's viciousness and apparent indiscriminate nature. Interventions of God became unthinkable, and yet, if God doesn't intervene at all then I guarantee you none of us have any hope with our Maker. The best we might hope for is that God cares so little about us, that we will let us fade into oblivion at death.

With the greatest respect, your guarantee, although no doubt well meant, is of no value to me. We have already considered how God's activity in the universe is one of continuous involvement, and discussed whether 'supernatural' interventions are a) possible (yes they are) and b) actual (not necessarily).

If you want to be like them, then join [people like Audie's] club Hugh and don't half-**** or be around the bush with your supremacist Naturalist-Christianity however you reconcile such.

That's just rude. Have you run out of arguments? If you don't like my theology say exactly where, and whether you understand it but disagree, or just don't understand it. If the former, I am happy to agree to differ. If the latter, I will explain.

The next step going forward is whether this God is is personal? If God isn't personal, then God doesn't care what happens, but just created for no real reason except for the sake of it. In which case, there is nothing more between God and us to be had. [et seq.] ...

Now this is beginning to be a more coherent philosophy. I say beginning, because it isn't very logically expressed, but the nature of the "person" of God is a worthwhile point of discussion.

If God is personal then we ought to expect God would make Himself known to us, that God should have have revealed Himself... and interestingly, monotheism all seems to point to Israel's God. Right? We don't have many options here. And then, furthermore, we shouldn't be at all surprised to find this God injecting Himself into the world and intervening here and there.

No. There are many ways of attempting to understand the "person" of God, and although I have no doubt that he could 'inject himself into the world and intervene here and there', I don't think he does.

Only blanket acceptance of Materialism would say otherwise

No. Not at all.What makes you say that?

What is the height of absurdity, is a belief that everything exists in a vacuum and is hung up upon nothing at all.

You may be right about that; but I'm not sure what it means.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I invite you to put on the table what you believe Hugh re: modern humanities origins. Timings, Neaderthal-human relationships, etc. You seem very confident in your knowledge, give me something, I'm open to re-education but I fear things aren't as certain here as you might believe.

The Wikipedia article on the Palaeolithic sums up the current state of thinking, including all the uncertainties, quite well. For numerous papers on the relationship between modern man and Neanderthals, I recommend putting "Palaeolithic Neanderthals" into Google Scholar. Mellars - "Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe" would be a good start.

hughfarey wrote:You're grasping straws Hugh with the animal thing. It's not a stretch to think humanity would have easily domesticated animals as soon as they came onto the scene as a matter of survival. In fact, I think it foolishness to think otherwise given human intelligence. The burden of proof, I think is on you to show humans wouldn't naturally domesticate animals.

No, that's not how science works. Your thinking this or that is foolishness is not science. The domestication of animals results in archaeological and genetic evidence which is wholly lacking before about 15000BC. If you want to understand more about the domestication of animals, try putting "Domestication of goats" or any other animal into Google Scholar, and read some of the papers published in Nature or similar journals. You could begin with
Zeder - "The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago."

boats, you know the ark wasn't a boat right?!

And you think I'm grasping at straws!

Consider the ark of the covenant. It was a container, a vessel intended to contain contents. God's presence is said to have resided upon such.

Yes. A boat is also a vessel intended to contain contents, plus it must also be designed to float on water. Really Kureiou, to deny that Noah's ark was a boat is pushing philology beyond its limits.

You cannot naturalize everything and still be Christian.

I can. I do. By what authority do you tell me I can't? Your own personal interpretation of scripture may be very worthy and well intentioned, but I think it's wrong. Elsewhere on recent threads I have elaborated to the best of my admittedly meagre theological understanding on the "naturalness" of God, so I won't repeat it all, but it is no less Christian than your own version, and has the bonus of cohering to the current theology of the major Christian divisions. You are, of course, at liberty to work out your own route to salvation, but to imagine that yours is valid and mine is not is unjustified without rather more than personal conviction as evidence.

I'm not blind, I'm fully aware we are into an age where Naturalism more-so Materialism reigns. It won't last, it'll come and go as a fad, and indeed it is already dying when I scout leading thinkers of our time and lay people are catching up. Yet, many Christians since Darwin's time, including Darwin, sought to reconcile God with nature, and nature's viciousness and apparent indiscriminate nature. Interventions of God became unthinkable, and yet, if God doesn't intervene at all then I guarantee you none of us have any hope with our Maker. The best we might hope for is that God cares so little about us, that we will let us fade into oblivion at death.

With the greatest respect, your guarantee, although no doubt well meant, is of no value to me. We have already considered how God's activity in the universe is one of continuous involvement, and discussed whether 'supernatural' interventions are a) possible (yes they are) and b) actual (not necessarily).

If you want to be like them, then join [people like Audie's] club Hugh and don't half-**** or be around the bush with your supremacist Naturalist-Christianity however you reconcile such.

That's just rude. Have you run out of arguments? If you don't like my theology say exactly where, and whether you understand it but disagree, or just don't understand it. If the former, I am happy to agree to differ. If the latter, I will explain.

The next step going forward is whether this God is is personal? If God isn't personal, then God doesn't care what happens, but just created for no real reason except for the sake of it. In which case, there is nothing more between God and us to be had. [et seq.] ...

Now this is beginning to be a more coherent philosophy. I say beginning, because it isn't very logically expressed, but the nature of the "person" of God is a worthwhile point of discussion.

If God is personal then we ought to expect God would make Himself known to us, that God should have have revealed Himself... and interestingly, monotheism all seems to point to Israel's God. Right? We don't have many options here. And then, furthermore, we shouldn't be at all surprised to find this God injecting Himself into the world and intervening here and there.

No. There are many ways of attempting to understand the "person" of God, and although I have no doubt that he could 'inject himself into the world and intervene here and there', I don't think he does.

Only blanket acceptance of Materialism would say otherwise

No. Not at all.What makes you say that?

What is the height of absurdity, is a belief that everything exists in a vacuum and is hung up upon nothing at all.

You may be right about that; but I'm not sure what it means.

Out of argument so get rude, yes, he was the same with me.

Perhaps not all is well with him and he is taking it out on others.
I do that, its awful of me, I hope I learn to fully control it.

For now I think I will let whatever it is blow over.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I invite you to put on the table what you believe Hugh re: modern humanities origins. Timings, Neaderthal-human relationships, etc. You seem very confident in your knowledge, give me something, I'm open to re-education but I fear things aren't as certain here as you might believe.

The Wikipedia article on the Palaeolithic sums up the current state of thinking, including all the uncertainties, quite well. For numerous papers on the relationship between modern man and Neanderthals, I recommend putting "Palaeolithic Neanderthals" into Google Scholar. Mellars - "Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe" would be a good start.

Gosh, way that shirk your own beliefs. Such a pom.

Perhaps you might at least get to the heart of my question. Tell me, what would be a more reasonable timing for the flood to have gotten all of a modern humanity, or next to all, in one location -- according to a modern scientific understanding? Surely you can at least answer such hypothetically.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You're grasping straws Hugh with the animal thing. It's not a stretch to think humanity would have easily domesticated animals as soon as they came onto the scene as a matter of survival. In fact, I think it foolishness to think otherwise given human intelligence. The burden of proof, I think is on you to show humans wouldn't naturally domesticate animals.

No, that's not how science works. Your thinking this or that is foolishness is not science. The domestication of animals results in archaeological and genetic evidence which is wholly lacking before about 15000BC. If you want to understand more about the domestication of animals, try putting "Domestication of goats" or any other animal into Google Scholar, and read some of the papers published in Nature or similar journals. You could begin with
Zeder - "The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago."

I carry no burden of proof because I'm not trying to prove anything. Furthermore, I'm not making a scientific argument, but saying humans have common sense. The ability to transcend nature, farm plants and domesticate other animals is a natural part of what we do as humans. It is a hallmark of our human species, over and above all others it seems.

Yet, you know, the animals Noah took onto the ark, again Scripture places such in the realm of the divine bringing them to Noah. So the possibility (which is all I'd be inclined to argue), again comes down to ones ontology. Carry a pure Materialistic picture of the world, that the physical world is all there is which just came from nowhere or has nothing underpinning it, then God is impossible. Yet, God as presented in Scripture is very much involved. So then what is impossible for humans, even if it took us 1000s of years for some stray wolf or wild dog to follow some native to their village and become domesticated , well it's possible with God such happened earlier, and really God pervades the whole story.

Now if you don't accept humans had the immediate common sense from the get go to adapt their natural surroundings to suit them for their comfort and survival (rather than merely adapting to their environments like lesser intelligent animals), then there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise. You believe what you do, based on absence of evidence, I believe what I do based upon the intelligence I see us humans possess.

Let it be said though, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Take when Darwin proposed evolution guided by natural selection leading to a diversity of species; the lack of transitional species being had did not at the time discount his hypothesis.

Audie wrote:Out of argument so get rude, yes, he was the same with me.

Perhaps not all is well with him and he is taking it out on others.
I do that, its awful of me, I hope I learn to fully control it.

For now I think I will let whatever it is blow over.

To what exactly are you referring?
I wasn't rude with Hugh at all, despite his sensitivities.
But, then, he's a pommy... they're all quite sensitive.

Re: my posts to you...
Your disrespect and indignation towards Christians on this board is growing thin.
Hugh here is really a side spectacle to me (sorry if that offends Hugh), but you I'm more concerned with.
It seems you forever have a chip on your shoulder towards us. Let it go!

It also doesn't leave my notice that the actual substance of my words is being largely ignored. You are making no true dialogue, continue to ignore what has been raised, and this is a normal occurrence for you on this board.

As for what I've raised here, again I find that the different cultures having their own flood stories with great similarities to be of significance. You want to belittle that because you hate Biblical floods. Does that amount to a lack of evidence, simply Bible reading, I don't know. Such disrespectful hand-waving statements you make, don't you see that? Could be quite civil and friendly dialogue without all the growling and gnarling. Don't expect to not receive fire back, especially from my quarters when you do such at me.

So given I've had no forthcoming responses with what I presented, I can only guess what you might think about such stories. Seems that many ancient cultures decided to have their own "supernatural" flood myths, involving their gods or people in vessels whether a boat or "on a chest", few only being spared or making their way up onto mountains. I guess these stories just came from thin air, from nothing. Like the universe appearing finely tuned as it is, it's all just coincidence. Such makes sense I suppose, to those who believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing, or that the laws of our universe just operate and run in a stable and predictable manner, or that there's really nothing significant at all in the world.

Yet, God as presented in Scripture is very much involved.

VERY true. And yet, people so often refuse to believe so much of it means what it actually says. Of they assert God gave us ridiculous symbolic stories for foundational underpinings explaining God's plan for man, the need for a Savior, etc. Then the absurdity continues when some assert things like the Resurrection surely must have been a natural event. Yet Scripture REDUNDANTLY and prolifically asserts quite the opposite. Really, is it NATURAL to believe a crucified, 2000-year-old rabbi was God in the flesh, that believing in Who He said He was and what He did, and committing oneself, through faith, to following Him is key to their salvation? Pure rational thinking won't produce such an understanding - as it defies the PURELY rational - which is why so many try to rationalize much of Scripture as being only symbolic or made up. If GOD made Scripture, are we to think He gave us a bunch of ridiculous tall tales? Are we to believe He'd rather have given us widely and wildly interpretable strange tales as opposed to straight-forward and understandable facts? Again, if we CAN'T understand so many foundational passages in Scripture, as one instead deems them mostly/simply symbolic or metaphoric - well, what good is it?

Why even believe faith in the Resurrection and that Jesus was Who He said He was, or why He had to die - why believe any of that, if we can't understand it to mean exactly what it says, in so many key places, and comprehensively affirmed, in so many other places? You either believe Scripture is largely understandable and true, or not. If not - it's meaningless! As no one's interpretation could be considered anything other than a wild, hairy guess. Why take it or ANYONE'S interpretation seriously?

So, do any Christians here consider that the flood of Noah, his ark, His animals are completely false, as typically understood? Then, regardless of when you think it might have occurred, how long ago, the extent of it, etc., you either believe it actually occurred or you don't. But if you don't, you are denying what Scripture says about it.

hughfarey wrote:

boats, you know the ark wasn't a boat right?!

And you think I'm grasping at straws!

Consider the ark of the covenant. It was a container, a vessel intended to contain contents. God's presence is said to have resided upon such.

Yes. A boat is also a vessel intended to contain contents, plus it must also be designed to float on water. Really Kureiou, to deny that Noah's ark was a boat is pushing philology beyond its limits.

In a modern sense, the ark often pictured as a large boat-like structure is a misconception. "Boat" is a vessel intended for travelling over water with propulsion of some sort whether oars, engine, sails; the ark was not such a thing. Consider a floating crate, would you consider such a boat? Well, it has the potential to float on water, so I suppose one might call it one if they get in it and use it to float on water -- but such is more of an improvisation if you will.

As an interesting aside, students tested and found that an empty box-shaped ark could float and carry much weight. The Smithsonian did an article write up: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 180950385/ submitted to a peer reviewed student run publication, the Journal of Physics Special Topics.

Now there is a Hebrew word, oniyah that is often translated as "ship". We see it used in Genesis 49:13, of Egyptian ships in Deuteronomy 28:68, Jehoshophat who made ships to carry gold in 1 Kings 22:48, and various other places.

So then, for your claim to hold up that "boat technology" simply was not had at such a time so Noah couldn't have made one, you must surely mean a "boat" proper and not simply a float device, right? You must argue what Noah created, the ark, was an actual ship of some sort. Yet, the word tebah is used. In Genesis 2:3 we read that Moses was placed in a basket (tebah), would you call a basket covered in pitch a boat? Well, in a way yes, it's a make-shift boat in that it floats and is being used -- but it's no "boat" proper as many would really consider a boat to be.

Rather tebah is a vessel intended to contain contents. The Ark of the Covenant was a wooden chest clad with gold said to have contained the two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments as well as Aaron's rod and a pot of manna. In a Jewish synagogue, situated at the front is a The Holy Ark (Aron Kodesh), where the Torah scrolls are kept. It's a vessel that contains valuable contents, like a chest of sorts.

Now that fact Noah's ark (tebah not oniyah) was covered with pitch suggests some water-proofing of sorts. So there is obvious intention of floating the vessel. Nonetheless only with God's providence would have such a vessel been perhaps reliably made and floated. That God is said to have "shut" Noah in, suggests to me that Noah faithfully obeyed in creating the "capsule" if you will to hold him, his family and animals as God instructed, but from there God did the rest and ensured the vessel floated and remained secured.

Lastly, even if we are talking a boat akin to some modern shape or construction with propulsion of some sort or the like, can you tell me who in the story gave Noah instruction as to the ark's dimensions and how to build it? What we have is merely a quick sketch, but no doubt more details probably would have been given, if it is true that God communicated with Noah. Furthermore, it makes sense to see Noah as more an overseer of the project, probably hired help, skilled help and could have performed much testing over the course of the building project. Nevertheless, let's not lose sight that if the story as to the divine elements is true, then God too is very much involved in the project to the point where God is instructing as to the ark's dimensions, the wood to use, how to seal it and likely a whole lot more.

Again, Genesis is a book full of God's intervention. If God exists, and God is personal, then it is a very real possibility that God does and did intervene directly in His creation. You think otherwise, I'd ask you why and for what reason?

Let me be clear, I'm not here discussing the ontological question of whether God is actually a person, but rather whether God cares for His creation, would desire good for us and to have relations with us.

This God, when I look around, the God of Israel stands out. Which other God is there? Now there are "gods" but then such aren't logically reducible to God but rather contingent-like spiritual beings with super-human attributes. Therefore, these "gods" cannot be God as God is properly understood when logically apprehended.

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:The Wikipedia article on the Palaeolithic sums up the current state of thinking, including all the uncertainties, quite well. For numerous papers on the relationship between modern man and Neanderthals, I recommend putting "Palaeolithic Neanderthals" into Google Scholar. Mellars - "Neanderthals and the modern human colonization of Europe" would be a good start.

Gosh, way that shirk your own beliefs. Such a pom.

How rude, again. The Wikipedia sums up my own beliefs quite adequately, and saves me the trouble of writing them all out, and readers here the trouble of skipping past hem if they're not interested.

Perhaps you might at least get to the heart of my question. Tell me, what would be a more reasonable timing for the flood to have gotten all of a modern humanity, or next to all, in one location -- according to a modern scientific understanding? Surely you can at least answer such hypothetically.

Of course I can. Actually you never asked any such question. Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus between about half a million and a million years ago, probably in the Rift Valley in Africa. If you want to look for a flood which wiped out almost all of them, you could do worse than try 700000 years ago, in Tanzania.

Kurieuo wrote:

hughfarey wrote:The domestication of animals results in archaeological and genetic evidence which is wholly lacking before about 15000BC. If you want to understand more about the domestication of animals, try putting "Domestication of goats" or any other animal into Google Scholar, and read some of the papers published in Nature or similar journals. You could begin with Zeder - "The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago."

I carry no burden of proof because I'm not trying to prove anything. Furthermore, I'm not making a scientific argument, but saying humans have common sense. The ability to transcend nature, farm plants and domesticate other animals is a natural part of what we do as humans. It is a hallmark of our human species, over and above all others it seems.

I rarely use the word 'proof' myself. You were asserting something as scientifically true in the absence of any evidence to support it. You appear to think that the very first men were farmers in a relatively modern sense, rather than, say, hunter gatherers, merely on the basis of your opinion that people have common sense. That is not sufficient authority for credibility.

Yet, you know, the animals Noah took onto the ark, again Scripture places such in the realm of the divine bringing them to Noah. So the possibility (which is all I'd be inclined to argue), again comes down to ones ontology. Carry a pure Materialistic picture of the world, that the physical world is all there is which just came from nowhere or has nothing underpinning it, then God is impossible. Yet, God as presented in Scripture is very much involved. So then what is impossible for humans, even if it took us 1000s of years for some stray wolf or wild dog to follow some native to their village and become domesticated , well it's possible with God such happened earlier, and really God pervades the whole story.

Well, that's fine. I have no problem with honest-to-God miraculists who reconcile any differences between the Bible and science by invoking direct divine intervention - I just don't agree with them.

Now if you don't accept humans had the immediate common sense from the get go to adapt their natural surroundings to suit them for their comfort and survival (rather than merely adapting to their environments like lesser intelligent animals), then there's not much I can say to convince you otherwise.

Not without evidence, no.

You believe what you do, based on absence of evidence, I believe what I do based upon the intelligence I see us humans possess. Let it be said though, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No, now that is disingenuous, and a misuse of the old adage. Absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence, especially when viewed in context. The dwindling archaeological evidence for domestication as we go back in time towards about 15000BC very clearly suggests that there was no domestication at all in 40000BC.

Hugh wrote:Well, that's fine. I have no problem with honest-to-God miraculists who reconcile any differences between the Bible and science by invoking direct divine intervention - I just don't agree with them.

I feel you're barking at a tree I'm not up. Nonetheless, accepting Christ and the very notion of who He is, creator of heaven and earth and all that exists which has been made, requires a foundation of honest-to-God miraculists as you say.