Evidence for God from Science

I don't know of anyone personally, but I've been told there are certain Christian sects that reject the Old Testament. By reject, I mean they don't accept it as the word of God, God's covenant new or old, or having ever been God's law. I've never seen anything on the internet about any such church. If anyone knows of such a sect and can answer a question, it would be greatly appreciated.

In light of the fact Jesus frequently referenced and validated the Old Testament, what is their rationale for rejecting it?


Thanks

I don't know ppl myself who reject old testament as the word of God. However I personally think that the O.T is simply history and it is not for christians to begin with, except to see the background, period.

I don't know ppl myself who reject old testament as the word of God. However I personally think that the O.T is simply history and it is not for christians to begin with, except to see the background, period.

Do you take the historical account of Adam and Eve literally then? Or did humanity originate from a small tribe in Africa?

Ofcourse it originated in Africa. Our dna has been traced to a population not one couple. So we do know for sure that the modern man didn't descend from a single pair. There was a severe bottle neck at one point but again the dna we inherited traced individuals spaced apart by atleast 100 thousand years. It can't be one couple anyway you look at it. That is a fact.

neo-x wrote:Ofcourse it originated in Africa. Our dna has been traced to a population not one couple. So we do know for sure that the modern man didn't descend from a single pair. There was a severe bottle neck at one point but again the dna we inherited traced individuals spaced apart by atleast 100 thousand years. It can't be one couple anyway you look at it. That is a fact.

Cnk12,
Neo x believes in some kind of theistic evolution. And don't be intimidated into believing everything he says, just because he claims it's a fact. It's Neo's belief that modern man didn't descend from a single pair, because the info he uses, has a lot of assumptions needed to make it work.

When a "fact" may not be a "fact".

From:http://www.reasons.org/articles/bioinfo ... am-and-eve

Bioinformatics and Theistic Evolution

Currently, theistic evolutionists’ argument against a literal Adam and Eve is frequently based on phylogenetic (“the study of evolutionary relatedness among groups of organisms”) computer models. The results of these models are presented as absolute truth. In reality, their accuracy, like weather forecasting, is limited by the assumptions on which the model is built, the data used to build the model, and the mathematical approach used to generate the phylogenetic trees.

As I’ll explain in future Today’s New Reason to Believe posts, the person constructing the phylogenetic computer model makes many assumptions and decisions in the course of building the model that ultimately affect the result, just as I can dramatically change the appearance of a circle by adjusting its shape, depth, and color. Additionally, just as hurricane forecasting models predict not just one path but multiple paths, phylogenetic models generate multiple distinct (and sometimes contradictory) theories regarding the evolutionary relationships between species.

In summary, when you hear theistic evolutionists say that the church must accept evolution because it is a fact, remember, what they refer to as “fact” is instead a theory. Remember that the phylogenetic models on which the rejection of a literal Adam and Eve are urged are just that—models. And like any model, they are only as good as the assumptions, the data, and the decisions on which they are built.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of you calling your beliefs "facts". If you want to believe the evidence favors an evolutionary model, then fine. Please stop calling it a fact. It's getting tiring.

Rick, come on, I'm talking about dna tracing, that is a fact. Its not a belief. The DNA traced is from more than a couple, how else I could say this?

And if you think its a belief then please carry on, I am not stopping you. You think thats a fact, I think this is.

Here's another. Notice, the writer is pointing out how evolutionists end up with their "facts".
http://www.reasons.org/articles/assumpt ... am-and-eve

Thats ok rick, since we are at an impasse and there is no way around it. So I really don't mind if you think what I am saying is a belief, I disagree, of course and I have plenty of research papers to back it up. I am sorry it offends you but you are asking me to say something I have concluded to be erroneous and I can't go back on that until I have good reasons to, further research etc.

That being said, if Fuz theory held water, he should have published it as a proper scientific paper and if he has evidence, no one would object, I would not object, thats how I see it. But as of this moment, the evidence for evolution is quite substantial and dna tracing is quite solid.

I am actually glad that you posted that article, if there is something to be learned I definitely look at it and so I did.

Please take some time and study the THIS ARTICLE it disapproves what Fuz is saying. I would really appreciate it if you read the article, research what it says and then let me know why you think it would be still wrong. I welcome your feedback.

Neo, I posted two links, and neither was by Fuz. Which link were you referring to?

And, I'll read the article you posted when I get a chance.

I personally think that the O.T is simply history and it is not for christians to begin with, except to see the background, period.

And, of course, ANYONE who holds this view must also reject what Jesus said in His New Testament endorsement of the Old Testament being God's word. And if they only believe certain parts of the Old or New Testament, then they clearly are picking and necessarily guessing which parts are God's Word and which parts are not. And as they have no idea which is which - only basing their choices on their own human reasoning - then the Bible is basically worthless to them - and this goes for whether they are speaking of the OT or the NT.

Yes Philip, thanks for the judgement. The Bible is totally worthless to me, yeah you're right. I just pick and choose my way, like you who takes a literal Adam and Eve but not thier creation story. I get it.

RickD wrote:Neo, I posted two links, and neither was by Fuz. Which link were you referring to?

And, I'll read the article you posted when I get a chance.

RickD wrote:Here's another. Notice, the writer is pointing out how evolutionists end up with their "facts".
http://www.reasons.org/articles/assumpt ... am-and-eve

This one Rick, and sorry but Fuz's pic on the side gave me the wrong impression, as I did notice Dr. Fanning at the bottom earlier.

I just pick and choose my way, like you who takes a literal Adam and Eve but not their creation story. I get it.

Yes, Neo, very disingenuous. You well know that the wording of Genesis matches up very well with the OEC view of an ancient universe - or you should. But whether it is ancient, not so, or whatever - meaning that if my understanding of the MEANING of the AGE issue isn't accurate, it doesn't change that I believe the text is true, historic and God-breathed. How LONG it took to get to those events (beginning with Adam's story) is a side issue. Whether he was a real person whose story is true or not - THAT is what really matters. You, on the other hand, would appear to simply dismiss huge chunks of the Bible as being the Word of God. I'm not even sure why you believe in the Resurrection or that you need to repent and be saved (DO you?). How do you decide which miracles are true and which are mere allegory? How do you decide what parts of the Bible are God's words? So you believe what the Gospels say about Jesus - WHICH parts? And why do you reject other parts? So God can create a universe but He can't control his Word? And the Bible says that His Words and promises are so important that Jesus came to DIE for them. Or did He?

neo-x wrote:Yes Philip, thanks for the judgement. The Bible is totally worthless to me, yeah you're right. I just pick and choose my way, like you who takes a literal Adam and Eve but not thier creation story. I get it.

Neo, I'm seeing the same thing Philip is seeing here. This isn't the first time you've said that OECs/PCs don't take the creation story literally. I understand you take the Genesis creation story as only being understood in view of YEC. But for you to say OECs like Ross, Rich Deem, Philip, and I don't take the creation story as literal, is wrong. You are doing the same thing you accuse others of, regarding not understanding evolution. By saying we don't take the creation story literally because we don't take it literally and concretely as most YEC interpretations, you are misrepresenting what we believe. Now, the problem I'm seeing is that by understanding the interpretation of the Genesis creation story as YEC only, you're creating a huge problem for yourself. Since you are convinced of evolution, and the only way you see genesis as being interpreted, is in a YEC interpretation, you've created a contradiction in your mind, between scripture and nature. So, you throw away the part of scripture(the YEC interpreted parts), in favor of evolution. And, you don't see a problem with this. At least not enough of a problem to have you reevaluate your interpretation of scripture and/or the evidence from nature.
I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but I see you heading down a dangerous road. And I see a potential for you to lead others astray, because of your tossing scripture aside.
How can you witness to unbelievers of a need for literal atonement, by a literal Christ, if you can't convince an unbeliever that the comparison between Adam and Christ is real?

Philip wrote:

I just pick and choose my way, like you who takes a literal Adam and Eve but not their creation story. I get it.

Yes, Neo, very disingenuous. You well know that the wording of Genesis matches up very well with the OEC view of an ancient universe - or you should. But whether it is ancient, not so, or whatever - meaning that if my understanding of the MEANING of the AGE issue isn't accurate, it doesn't change that I believe the text is true, historic and God-breathed. How LONG it took to get to those events (beginning with Adam's story) is a side issue. Whether he was a real person whose story is true or not - THAT is what really matters. You, on the other hand, would appear to simply dismiss huge chunks of the Bible as being the Word of God. I'm not even sure why you believe in the Resurrection or that you need to repent and be saved (DO you?). How do you decide which miracles are true and which are mere allegory? How do you decide what parts of the Bible are God's words? So you believe what the Gospels say about Jesus - WHICH parts? And why do you reject other parts? So God can create a universe but He can't control his Word? And the Bible says that His Words and promises are so important that Jesus came to DIE for them. Or did He?

Philip, if its concern that shows in your message I appreciate it, I really do. You may have missed my earlier posts on the subject on various threads though I vaguely remember talking to you on this before, anyways. Let me rephrase, most of what you are saying is simply a straw man, even if it's unintentional. The thing is I reject none of the bible, I only rejected the part I had evidence against...there I hope that makes it easy for you to understand what my position is, I don't question the resurrection. Nor do I question that I needed to be saved. Not at all. I don't question miracles. Perhaps its your choice of words, but I am sensing a very "holier than thou" attitude here, maybe its just me but your sarcasm hasn't helped.