Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I actually don't think that neo's position is comparable to deism in that I don't think it makes God a bystander. I think lurking under that accusation is just another version of the sovereignty/free-will debate. The implication is that if God does not predetermine an act that God somehow is just a bystander. Now, I'm obviously neither a Molinist nor an evolutionist (I'm a YEC Thomist!), but I could see how neo's position is compatible with K's. Neo could just claim, consistent with K's beliefs, that God knew all possible worlds--which would include all possible mutations--and chose to actualize this particular one. On that view, God isn't "guiding" the evolutionary process at all. It really is unguided (just like our choices really are free), but God is hardly a bystander!

Anyway, carry on.

Seriously, you suck. I'm still

It's not too often I've come across something that has knocked me sideways.
Now I have some introspection into my own beliefs to do.
Don't let it go to your head!

Shouldn't you be working on your DS paper?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I actually don't think that neo's position is comparable to deism in that I don't think it makes God a bystander. I think lurking under that accusation is just another version of the sovereignty/free-will debate. The implication is that if God does not predetermine an act that God somehow is just a bystander. Now, I'm obviously neither a Molinist nor an evolutionist (I'm a YEC Thomist!), but I could see how neo's position is compatible with K's. Neo could just claim, consistent with K's beliefs, that God knew all possible worlds--which would include all possible mutations--and chose to actualize this particular one. On that view, God isn't "guiding" the evolutionary process at all. It really is unguided (just like our choices really are free), but God is hardly a bystander!

Anyway, carry on.

Thanks Jac, you can say things much better than I ever could, my understanding is somewhat limited by my brains capacity.

Too much Foster's me thinks.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I actually don't think that neo's position is comparable to deism in that I don't think it makes God a bystander. I think lurking under that accusation is just another version of the sovereignty/free-will debate. The implication is that if God does not predetermine an act that God somehow is just a bystander. Now, I'm obviously neither a Molinist nor an evolutionist (I'm a YEC Thomist!), but I could see how neo's position is compatible with K's. Neo could just claim, consistent with K's beliefs, that God knew all possible worlds--which would include all possible mutations--and chose to actualize this particular one. On that view, God isn't "guiding" the evolutionary process at all. It really is unguided (just like our choices really are free), but God is hardly a bystander!

Anyway, carry on.

Thanks Jac, you can say things much better than I ever could, my understanding is somewhat limited by my brains capacity.

Too much Foster's me thinks.

Don't make me set my Chuzwazza onto you.

Let's keep it respectful - don't want for Neo to think anyone's piling on him. HOWEVER, some key, clarifying answers would be helpful. I don't see how one can dismiss key parts of the Bible as being fiction (although one could argue for various interpretations of various passages, depending upon the employed hermeneutics) - especially as they are foundational and the entire OT is confirmed as Scriptural by Christ - and still have the understanding that one needs a Savior. How so? You believe some true, most not - how do you know which is which? Or which is a blend of fact and imagination? How can - or WOULD - a sovereign god allow this to happen to His Word? To me, this would be a god of indifference, chaos and cruelty.

Philip wrote:Let's keep it respectful - don't want for Neo to think anyone's piling on him. HOWEVER, some key, clarifying answers would be helpful. I don't see how one can dismiss key parts of the Bible as being fiction (although one could argue for various interpretations of various passages, depending upon the employed hermeneutics) - especially as they are foundational and the entire OT is confirmed as Scriptural by Christ - and still have the understanding that one needs a Savior. How so? You believe some true, most not - how do you know which is which? Or which is a blend of fact and imagination? How can - or WOULD - a sovereign god allow this to happen to His Word? To me, this would be a god of indifference, chaos and cruelty.

Philip, Is God a God of chaos and cruelty because he lets his followers burn alive at the stake, but gives special protection to an old dusty book? Do you think that song of songs is a work of non-fiction or is it poetry? Were Jesus' parables fictitious stories used to explain a concept or where they factual accounts of actual events? It is also widely believed that Job is a work of fiction, a story that has been passed down through the generations and eventually written down to explain a theological point, it was not necessarily a true story, but that in no way detracts from the truths that it holds. You can believe Genesis is a work of fiction from a scientific point of view and also hold at the same time that it is also a work of non-fiction which explains a theological point and you can obtain truths from that, it can be both you know without effecting the authenticity of any other book contained within the Bible.

Ok, I've thought it through and there was a lot going on in your statements.

There is definitely a comparison to be made for sure.

You say that God would not be a bystander. (I'm not sure if you say that with tongue-in-cheek at me, since obviously on Molinism I don't see God as a bystander)
However, I disagree with you and believe God would be a bystander if:
1) God did not actively participate in the forming of this universe or life
2) God knowing all possible universes just "sparked" one into existence along with all our free decisions, etc.

(I think you actually think God would be a bystander too, and that you were probably just trying to tease me into seeing an error with my own beliefs).

You write:

• Neo could just claim, consistent with K's beliefs, that God knew all possible worlds--which would include all possible mutations--and chose to actualize this particular one. On that view, God isn't "guiding" the evolutionary process at all. It really is unguided (just like our choices really are free), but God is hardly a bystander!

That is true, except the aforementioned part in bold about God not being a bystander.
HOWEVER, it is true if and only if my Molinist beliefs have God foreseeing all worlds, choosing one and that's that. No more further involvement.

But, that is not what I believe (nor Craig with his more modern Molinist view).
God doesn't just select one world, but is actively creating every moment in virtue of His living alongside us in time. (another belief of mine I'm sure you're aware to -- that God was timeless and then at creation gave up His timelessness and entered into time).

So on my Molinist view, God enters into temporality at his first creative act in virtue of His true relations with His Creation.
Thus, God really is personal, along side us in life, living with us throughout every situation we're in, sustaining everything in existence and every new moment.
That is a big important difference that was left out in your comparison.

On an atemporal/timeless view however, God stands afar off.
He can not be with us in time, because to do so would impinge His timelessness.
Thus, God cannot actually know tensed facts since God doesn't not know where in time we actually are (that this moment I'm at is 30/01/2015 2:32 PM AEST). God might now that at that time I was writing this, but He cannot know that that moment is NOW because God is not in time.

There is also actually perhaps more of a correlation between Neo-X's view of God (heck, we haven't even had his own clarifications yet but based upon what we're all assuming here) AND a view of God that keeps Him timeless. Especially if any Molinist believes God foresees all possible worlds, chooses one AND believes that God is timeless... that would be a better comparison to Neo-X's views (or as we're understanding them to be). In such views, I believe God IS actually a bystander. Deistic even.

And if I've left anyone confused, please open up a new thread.
Happy to discuss and unpack anything further.

Well, when you say goes back to 2 million years ago, that is certainly not your homo sapiens who'd be anatomically similar to us.

So you make all these statements, believe we came from a group of x individuals and that it is impossible to be one couple, believe Mito DNA is actually traced back 2 million years ago.... I'd just like to read the sources so I can digest the actual data behind your statements. Not for everything to do with your evolutionary beliefs (as in your other thread), but just these beliefs.
The actual science behind your specific statements here is actually getting buried and that is what I'm interested in.

Please understand that you already believe in human evolution, you already have made up your mind on this and that based upon whatever it is you've read, but here you're just declaring your end beliefs.
Then you appear to get frustrated because I'm not just accepting what you claim to be the case re: your statements.

I've done much reading and reached different conclusions to you.
I don't think it is unfair that I just ask for references to some articles or studies that you've read and/or base you beliefs on.
This would actually make your task easier I think. It'd help to clarify your statements. I'm fair when I read science. Doesn't mean I'll interpret the data the same. It would at least allow me to digest your sources and possibly provide further justifications for my own beliefs if that is possible.

Really not sure what is so hard about that.
RickD quickly provided some Day-Age sources, which I would expect to be rejected out of hand by yourself.
But, at least he places his cards down on the table face up.

Not sure what you want me to do. RickD can give you sources because they are small articles on creation websites, not science papers. Its easy to read those I guess. My sources range from books to articles, websites etc my understanding/conclusions don't come from one article or two rather they are based in a collective reading.

So if you want to know here is what I recommend you do:
Start with the, On the Origin of species by Darwin.

Proceed to read The selfish gene by Dawkins next.

And follow it up with, The Ancestor's tale.

You can read next, Science, Evolution, and Creationism by National Academy of Sciences

Don't form any conclusions yet though go on and:
Then, read Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters

Then, Remarkable Creatures: Epic Adventures in the Search for the Origin of Species by Dr. Sean B. Carroll

Then, Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is true.

And then, Your Inner Fish: A journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body

If you still have the stomach then read, The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People by Neil Shubin

Also a mildly okay read is also, The language of God by Francis Collins, I say this because it is more on his personal faith than on evolutionary science but it may help.

And then a good read only if you can chaff away his comments on religion read only the science in it, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Dawkins.

Add to that numerous articles, websites and science papers which compliment the material above which are mostly listed in the evolution resource thread. So your fill of all things science will be quenched I hope.

If you find all that a burden, and it could be, as I said and I hope you will surely remember that it would take you some months to digest all that. So if you are looking for a very short, and incomplete, but still enough-to-pin-down-basics article, see the wiki article here Evidence of common descent As it surmises nicely of what is scattered over hundred of science papers but equally important that you see the sources cited at the bottom of this article, there are massive citations from science papers, supporting what the article says.

Sadly if you are looking for a single paper or two to substantiate these finding then I am afraid you won't find it. It's a complete science and pun intended, its the same reading the Bible and understanding all of it, obviously you can't read only one book and say you understand the bible can you?

Thanks neo-x.

Looks like you're trying to give me sources for educating me in the ToE.
Does such necessitate there wasn't one couple for all modern humans?

Here's an evolutionary scenario.
A couple, anatomically modern human like us, evolved.
Then they have offspring.

But you reject that. Why?
Perhaps you believe our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals or the like?
Eventually you have "us" at some point still. Right?

Kurieuo wrote:Also, by "credible links" I mean actual scientific articles or studies.

I thought Biologos would be a main source for your beliefs as a Theistic Evolutionist?
Reasonable Faith (Craig) by no means represents itself as a science website.
Maybe you mean Reasons to Believe. Biologos and RTB are firstly Christian apologist sites and they don't hide that.

But, obviously Biologos and RTB interpret the scientific data within their Christian framework rather than assuming philosophical Naturalism. Maybe you think that is what's bogus? I don't know. But, in any case I just mean even your own sources.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Also, by "credible links" I mean actual scientific articles or studies.

I thought Biologos would be a main source for your beliefs as a Theistic Evolutionist?
Reasonable Faith (Craig) by no means represents itself as a science website.
Maybe you mean Reasons to Believe. Biologos and RTB are firstly Christian apologist sites and they don't hide that.

But, obviously Biologos and RTB interpret the scientific data within their Christian framework rather than assuming philosophical Naturalism. Maybe you think that is what's bogus? I don't know. But, in any case I just mean even your own sources.

K,

While Neo once said he was a TE in a loose sense, he's recently said he's not a TE. I searched for the last 5 minutes, trying to find where Neo said it, but I couldn't find it. If I remember correctly, Neo said he thinks TE is something like a compromise for people who are trying to fit evolution into the bible. Neo has made it clear that he believes evolution can't be found in the bible. At least not in genesis.

With that said, I'm not sure he's a fan of biologos.

Most creation websites try to water down science facts in such a way that they are distorted. Evolution can not be fitted within scriptures. I think genesis was written with a pure YEC frameset. The more I read, the more contradictory it becomes. I have heard about the whole Yom thing but I am terribly unimpressed by it. The point is not whether yom can be called a day or an age or endless time, the point is that whether it can be read in genesis as such and how much warrant do we have to use it then as such, while thinking like Moses. Did Moses really thought that the yom was not a single day? What merit did he have to question a 24 day period or a 6 day creation? NONE.

So my conclusion is we can't fit yom in the creation story as more than a 24 hour period. And I am quite sad by articles by Christians trying to fit scriptures with evolution all the time, in a very shoddy way at times. May be you think you can fit yom in genesis, if so I don't mind. It doesn't make sense to me but hey we all can interpret scripture so go ahead.

I am not a T.E in the usual sense of the term, since I reject that evolution is God guided. Which T.E usually believe along with the idea that Adam and Eve were special creation fist couple.

I do think that without God there could be nothing, no cosmos, etc I am still dependent on God but in the most remote sense of the word where God let things happen, occasionally to interfere but not as a rule. Can God know all outcomes? I think he can but I don't make this a part of my faith, I am not even bothered whether this statement is accurate or not. Frankly it is irrelevant. I am sure God knows all but I really have no idea why this affects evidence that we do have today.

Just wondering, what do you make of Christ... As in who he is to you? and I suppose why?

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks neo-x.

Looks like you're trying to give me sources for educating me in the ToE.
Does such necessitate there wasn't one couple for all modern humans?

Here's an evolutionary scenario.
A couple, anatomically modern human like us, evolved.
Then they have offspring.

But you reject that. Why?
Perhaps you believe our ancestors interbred with Neanderthals or the like?
Eventually you have "us" at some point still. Right?

K, I am not trying to be obtuse or just being thick that I can not understand what you are asking of me. I have honestly told you what I have read over the last 2 years. Its too much to read though.

The thing is there are problems here with your scenario:

Here's an evolutionary scenario.
A couple, anatomically modern human like us, evolved.
Then they have offspring.

A couple doesn't evolve individually, in the same sense as humans are now on this planet. A complete population does. The gene pool needs to be SO MUCH BIGGER to achieve this outcome. It also assumes there is only couple. Out of curiosity do you believe this couple contains the mito eve?

There is evidence that Neanderthals dna is mixed with us, or atleast some of humans. I tend to think that at some point that did happen, how much? I don't know.

What is quite astonishing is how the dna pits us. Look at the banana 50% same dna. The chimp 96-98% and many people like to point out how big the difference is even at 4% difference. I say well why not look at the rest of the 96 percent which is THE SAME? How do you account for that? but in comes the most absurd statement, God made everything from the same dna? any thing to back it up though? did God ran out of dna? But sadly no answer poof, nothing. Just a hunch.

It essentially boils down to whether you believe if life can evolve from molecule to fish, to amphibian, reptile, to bipedals to humans. I think it can given the forces of nature. I think our argument's core issues lies here.

ID makes no sense, people who do make sense of it, doesn't make sense to me. A look at a shark and a lion and a Goat and I start to wonder what kind of intelligent designer makes those teeth and claws with brute force and high metabolism with the intention of having them to eat grass? Why does a cheetah runs so fast when he can simply waltz to the next grassy patch?

Why does a scorpion had a sting when death could only come through sin? Sin came into the world after creation but the devices of killing were all in God's design well before death actually came? So God did knew that death is going to be there and that just means God knew Adam would eat the fruit and be banished. Which simply means that God could have stopped all of that knowing full well the consequence of creation? and that is pandora's box

See all of that leads to more contradictions of God. I can simply say with facts that none of that happened. Death always existed. Hominid population never came to a bottleneck which was only one couple. Adam eat fruit or not, would have eventually died. If there was no death and Adam didn't eat the fruit, the planet would be unstable for life as there will be no chain of food nor enough food and space eventually, assuming no one ever died?

On this planet life produced death and then death produced life, without us going into the ground and decomposing a lot of nature wouldn't be like you see today.

The thing is I find it funny when people accept micro evolution but not macro its like saying I believe in inches but not miles.

But you reject that. Why?

Because I told you that there are multiple dna markings in our dna which go back to more than two ancestors. I am not trying to educate you in TOE but rather hoping that you read and see that explains why one couple can't be enough to produce human diversity we see today? Humans had to develop parallel at times with different natural pressures to become what they are today.

You always cite that we all trace back to one female, as if it makes any difference, it doesn't. I already told you that offsprings of other females are alive today as well. That basically shows how larger a population group evolved. You need to look for Common ancestorys first and then Most recent common ancestors.

Philip, Is God a God of chaos and cruelty because he lets his followers burn alive at the stake, but gives special protection to an old dusty book?

I am not merely speaking of the here and NOW, but also of eternity, but also of giving us hope and guidance NOW. Scripture shows that God has always been there for those whom love Him, even when He allows difficulty into their lives. And His intervention into this world has every consequence for the next one. I'm also saying that if God requires perfection and sinlessness for us to enter into His presence, that 1) the only way we would know this is IF He made this clear to us in a way that we could clearly understand, and 2) that if He truly loves us and as He has the ability to save, sustain and protect (for eternity) those He loves, to not make a way to save us would be UNloving. If one sees a man drowning in the middle of a lake, and he has a boat to reach him and a life preserver he can easily throw him - and yet doesn't - what would that say about that person's love and concern for the drowning? So I'm talking about SPIRITUALLY drowning. And is that how you view Scripture, as a dusty, old book? I surely hope not!

Do you think that song of songs is a work of fiction or is it poetry? Were Jesus' parables fictitious stories used to explain a concept or where they factual accounts of actual events?

Of COURSE, just because Scripture is true or that it is God's Word, does not mean that there is not symbolism, metaphor and allegory in it. But acknowledging this is FAR different from asserting that much of it is pure fiction from the imaginations of man, or heavily blended with such. Because if that is the case, it's totally WORTHLESS to us to understand truth from, to obtain reliable guidance, to understand prophecy, etc.

It is also widely believed that Job is a work of fiction, a story that has been passed down and eventually written down that explained a theological point, it was not necessarily a true story, but that in no way detracts from the truths that it holds.

Says WHO???!!! Give me some names of some widely respected, evangelical theologians who would assert this. I can guarantee you that will be one small list! And did you also know that many theologians believe Job is the OLDEST book - older than Genesis? Did you know that some, like Hugh Ross, believe that Genesis actually makes more sense if this is true, that Moses wrote in light of what was already in Job. In fact, Hugh wrote an entire book on this: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Treasures- ... B005BOXNZ4

And, from Apologetics Press: "Job is mentioned in three different verses in Scripture (outside the book of Job), and in all three passages he is considered a real, historical figure.

The first two places his name is found (aside from the book of Job) is in Ezekiel 14, verses 14 and 20. In verse 14, the prophet stated: “Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness, says the Lord God.” Verse 20 is worded nearly the same way: “[E]ven though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.” Ezekiel’s point in both verses was that the ungodly conditions in the land were such that even if Noah, Daniel, and Job lived in that city, no one else would be saved. Ezekiel spoke of all three of these men as being real, historical people, not legendary characters. If one recognizes Noah and Daniel as being real people of history, then there is no reason to think otherwise about Job.

The last place the suffering patriarch is mentioned in Scripture (and the only time he is mentioned in the New Testament) is found in the latter part of the book of James. In 5:10-11 we read: “My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience. Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord—that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.” Obviously, James was not writing through inspiration about an imaginary person. Rather, he considered Job as real as Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and as genuine as the Lord Himself."

You can believe Genesis is a work of fiction from a scientific point of view and also hold at the same time that it is also a work of non-fiction which explains a theological point and you can obtain truths from that, it can be both you know without effecting the authenticity of any other book contained within the Bible.

Woah, so you are saying that something can be true and NOT true at the same time???!!! Now, perhaps one can misinterpret it scientifically. One can even misinterpret parts of Genesis to be speaking of scientific understandings while certain parts may well be not meant to discuss the scientific portions whatsoever (I believe this to be partially the case). See this book: http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-We-Misu ... understood. But I can guarantee you that IF a passage is truly speaking of scientific things (and that may well be a current uncertainty) then it is also true SCIENTIFICALLY. So, you're saying God can create a universe and yet He can't clearly communicate simple scientific explanations IF THAT IS WHAT HE SO INTENDS? Or was that even His intent? And WHICH audience was some of the argued-over passages primarily actually addressing? You believe God can create a universe and not be able to protect the transmission of His word? He creates on a fantastically, immensely complicated molecular and universal scale, and yet He's could care less about His word, wouldn't think it IMPORTANT to correct. That's just nonsensical!

And here's the thing if one insists that many things plainly described are mere allegory or symbolic: 1) Then what do they REALLY mean? And how could we ever actually know? 2) And why would God give us some fairy tale story instead of an explanation we could trust and know to be true? What other fairy tales are there - the one about Jesus being Resurrected? The ones where the Apostles risk their very lives by insisting all must have faith in Christ to secure their eternity? Which is which and what is what? This is the slippery and terribly uncertain slope many are on (and, for some, conveniently so). And one would then have to ask why God didn't protect (or actually give, some might say) His Word - you know, the one Jesus said He came to fulfill and DIE for. Yeah, that Word!

OR it may be that portions of Scripture are scientifically AND accurately described, but our science understandings have not YET acquired the correct analysis - perhaps, because our puny human tools to discern things created by the mind and voice of God, a UNIVERSE and its inhabitants that He SPOKE into being - are relatively crude. There's a variety of possibilities. Genesis was written originally to people of a pre-scientific age who had just come out of absorbing 400+ years of pagan Egyptian and ancient Mesopotamian creation myths - so, it's quite likely we've read scientific commentary into passages that weren't even addressing the science to begin with. Hugh Ross has made this mistake quite a bit because he's not a theologian or Hebrew scholar. He's read science into all kinds of passages that likely have not a thing to do with the science of things. And we can't forget that his (and others') Progressive Creationism offers very plausible explanations for the known and widely accepted evidences, yet without the need for evolution (the belief in which likely is driving much of Dan's argument), but that affirms belief in an ancient (14 billion-year-old) universe.

Kurieuo wrote:Just wondering, what do you make of Christ... As in who he is to you? and I suppose why?

Kindly start a new thread, "Questioning Neo's beliefs: a guide to [have a beer] Christians who disagree with us" I will respond to it there.

No, seriously why do you even ask? I doubt it will be different than yours. We disagree on creation beliefs mostly, K, not necessarily all christian doctrine.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Just wondering, what do you make of Christ... As in who he is to you? and I suppose why?

Kindly start a new thread, "Questioning Neo's beliefs: a guide to [have a beer] Christians who disagree with us" I will respond to it there.

No, seriously why do you even ask? I doubt it will be different than yours. We disagree on creation beliefs mostly, K, not necessarily all christian doctrine.

Bloody hell neo-x. Forget I asked. You beliefs don't make sense to me. We'll leave it at that.

Philip wrote:

Philip, Is God a God of chaos and cruelty because he lets his followers burn alive at the stake, but gives special protection to an old dusty book?

I am not merely speaking of the here and NOW, but also of eternity, but also of giving us hope and guidance NOW. Scripture shows that God has always been there for those whom love Him, even when He allows difficulty into their lives. And His intervention into this world has every consequence for the next one. I'm also saying that if God requires perfection and sinlessness for us to enter into His presence, that 1) the only way we would know this is IF He made this clear to us in a way that we could clearly understand, and 2) that if He truly loves us and as He has the ability to save, sustain and protect (for eternity) those He loves, to not make a way to save us would be UNloving. If one sees a man drowning in the middle of a lake, and he has a boat to reach him and a life preserver he can easily throw him - and yet doesn't - what would that say about that person's love and concern for the drowning? So I'm talking about SPIRITUALLY drowning. And is that how you view Scripture, as a dusty, old book? I surely hope not!

Do you think that song of songs is a work of fiction or is it poetry? Were Jesus' parables fictitious stories used to explain a concept or where they factual accounts of actual events?

Of COURSE, just because Scripture is true or that it is God's Word, does not mean that there is not symbolism, metaphor and allegory in it. But acknowledging this is FAR different from asserting that much of it is pure fiction from the imaginations of man, or heavily blended with such. Because if that is the case, it's totally WORTHLESS to us to understand truth from, to obtain reliable guidance, to understand prophecy, etc.

It is also widely believed that Job is a work of fiction, a story that has been passed down and eventually written down that explained a theological point, it was not necessarily a true story, but that in no way detracts from the truths that it holds.

Says WHO???!!! Give me some names of some widely respected, evangelical theologians who would assert this. I can guarantee you that will be one small list! And did you also know that many theologians believe Job is the OLDEST book - older than Genesis? Did you know that some, like Hugh Ross, believe that Genesis actually makes more sense if this is true, that Moses wrote in light of what was already in Job. In fact, Hugh wrote an entire book on this: http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Treasures- ... B005BOXNZ4

And, from Apologetics Press: "Job is mentioned in three different verses in Scripture (outside the book of Job), and in all three passages he is considered a real, historical figure.

The first two places his name is found (aside from the book of Job) is in Ezekiel 14, verses 14 and 20. In verse 14, the prophet stated: “Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness, says the Lord God.” Verse 20 is worded nearly the same way: “[E]ven though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, says the Lord God, they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.” Ezekiel’s point in both verses was that the ungodly conditions in the land were such that even if Noah, Daniel, and Job lived in that city, no one else would be saved. Ezekiel spoke of all three of these men as being real, historical people, not legendary characters. If one recognizes Noah and Daniel as being real people of history, then there is no reason to think otherwise about Job.

The last place the suffering patriarch is mentioned in Scripture (and the only time he is mentioned in the New Testament) is found in the latter part of the book of James. In 5:10-11 we read: “My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience. Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end intended by the Lord—that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.” Obviously, James was not writing through inspiration about an imaginary person. Rather, he considered Job as real as Elijah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and as genuine as the Lord Himself."

You can believe Genesis is a work of fiction from a scientific point of view and also hold at the same time that it is also a work of non-fiction which explains a theological point and you can obtain truths from that, it can be both you know without effecting the authenticity of any other book contained within the Bible.

Woah, so you are saying that something can be true and NOT true at the same time???!!! Now, perhaps one can misinterpret it scientifically. One can even misinterpret parts of Genesis to be speaking of scientific understandings while certain parts may well be not meant to discuss the scientific portions whatsoever (I believe this to be partially the case). See this book: http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-We-Misu ... understood. But I can guarantee you that IF a passage is truly speaking of scientific things (and that may well be a current uncertainty) then it is also true SCIENTIFICALLY. So, you're saying God can create a universe and yet He can't clearly communicate simple scientific explanations IF THAT IS WHAT HE SO INTENDS? Or was that even His intent? And WHICH audience was some of the argued-over passages primarily actually addressing? You believe God can create a universe and not be able to protect the transmission of His word? He creates on a fantastically, immensely complicated molecular and universal scale, and yet He's could care less about His word, wouldn't think it IMPORTANT to correct. That's just nonsensical!

And here's the thing if one insists that many things plainly described are mere allegory or symbolic: 1) Then what do they REALLY mean? And how could we ever actually know? 2) And why would God give us some fairy tale story instead of an explanation we could trust and know to be true? What other fairy tales are there - the one about Jesus being Resurrected? The ones where the Apostles risk their very lives by insisting all must have faith in Christ to secure their eternity? Which is which and what is what? This is the slippery and terribly uncertain slope many are on (and, for some, conveniently so). And one would then have to ask why God didn't protect (or actually give, some might say) His Word - you know, the one Jesus said He came to fulfill and DIE for. Yeah, that Word!

OR it may be that portions of Scripture are scientifically AND accurately described, but our science understandings have not YET acquired the correct analysis - perhaps, because our puny human tools to discern things created by the mind and voice of God, a UNIVERSE and its inhabitants that He SPOKE into being - are relatively crude. There's a variety of possibilities. Genesis was written originally to people of a pre-scientific age who had just come out of absorbing 400+ years of pagan Egyptian and ancient Mesopotamian creation myths - so, it's quite likely we've read scientific commentary into passages that weren't even addressing the science to begin with. Hugh Ross has made this mistake quite a bit because he's not a theologian or Hebrew scholar. He's read science into all kinds of passages that likely have not a thing to do with the science of things. And we can't forget that his (and others') Progressive Creationism offers very plausible explanations for the known and widely accepted evidences, yet without the need for evolution (the belief in which likely is driving much of Dan's argument), but that affirms belief in an ancient (14 billion-year-old) universe.

We don't need only explanations. The problem with all these beliefs, OEC, day age, progressive is that they only explain they don't predict and they can't be falsified because they are not science based at all, they're beliefs. Evolution predicts (many other predictions exists) we will never find a rabbit fossil in the Triassic dating range. If we do find it well yeah I will admit that the whole timeline of evolution is in question and we have erred. But not before that, no. For these to replace the evolution model they need to come up with their scientific predictions, and that also is true for ID which is really lacking on that front.