Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

@DeepThought

There's a way of explaining it less mathematically which people who understand the subject really well can do, the level of mathsiness was just a reflection of my understanding of it.

That was kind of what was asking, a way in which the average layman might understand. The person that I asked finally admitted that it could only be visualized in terms of mathematics. I see the grids in the illustrations of those who try.

The whole of fundamental physics is a game of geometry.

Okay.
Your other comments ...

I'm less worried by the moral implications than I am by the notion that the Bible should be taken literally.

Well, when poetry is being written, you take that as poetry.
When allegory is being written, you receive that as allegory.
So on and so forth for other literary devices like symbolism or parables.

Someone said, you take them at face value.
But going on to historical writing you find hard to believe?

Genesis contains two creation stories. In the earlier part we have:

I see wisdom in two creation accounts with different emphases.

And though they are admttedly different there is something that they both have in common.
Whether God made animals first and man afterwards OR God made man first and afterward the animals - they BOTH portray human beings as the apex of all of God's creatures.

To me it is like - " Get the point. Of all the creatures humans have a special supreme position among them. Though we are connected to all other living things, we humans are closer to God in our inherent creation. "

You see, I think God knew that we are experts at missing the point.
Two accounts - Genesis 1 followed by Genesis 2 with unity yet respective focuses, is no problem to me.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27 AKJV

That is general about man being unique in being in the image and likeness of God, in contrast to all other creatures.
Full stop. Then Genesis 2[ with its particular central focus.

Adam and Eve who came out of Adam - is a window into the eternal purpose of God. To bring out of Himself a counterpart with His life and nature, brought back to Him for a special eternal union.

Also in Genesis 2 the two trees - the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil show man created neutral but between two choices - to be united to God for life or to be united to God's enemy for death.

The TWO accounts of creation, I take as very concise and focused divine speakings revealing the most important aspects of WHY we exist and the purpose of God.

I have always recognized that obviously, if God was giving an exhaustive record of how He created everything, then maybe there would be not two chapters but twenty books describing JUST what a drop of water is or 100 books describing exactly what was the composition of a clod of dirt.

Creation told in two chapters from two different angles is to me an indication of God's wisdom.

I think I posted this earlier in the thread somewhere. In this version man[kind] was created and both sexes appear simultaneously. There is no indication that only one couple was created.

Male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27) is general and really does not specify that much.
I don't see how anything in Genesis 2 renders the impossibility of what is explained in Genesis 1.

There is some question about whether man's creation followed the other creatures or man's creation preceded the other creatures. I think it is deliberate that it is ambiguous. For the POINT of either is that it doesn't matter WHEN humans were created. The time sequence is not as important the intention that humanity is at the pinnacle, the top of the pyramid of living things.

Later in Genesis we get the Adam and Eve story:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:7 AKJV

It is not a problem to me.
Genesis 1 shows God is a God of order and rested when He arrives at the outworking of His plan. And that all was originally made "very good" with man representing God and assigned to rule on behalf of God over God's creation - image and dominion.

Genesis 2 is a window into the reason for the fall of man, creation under him, God's plan of salvation, and something predestined and foreknown by God - out from Himself He would produce a match for Him to be united with.

This man was neutral, innocent, and between two sources - one represented by the tree of life - God of life, and the other represented by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Satan the Devil, God's temporary enemy as the source of independence from God and death.
I'll cut this post here.

@caissad4 said
Fame and fortune await anyone who can disprove evolution.
Fossils of crocodiles and turtles would not indicate extinction.

Disprove it, what is it you want to see, that nothing about random processes can produce anything new of a functionally complex nature like a respiratory system. That we don't see strings of lifeforms today running around not fossilized, just a little less complex than others so they survived, not having the decency to die off as the theory said they were supposed to? That there is no explanation as how the life started in the first place? That there isn't a good explanation for males and females and so on? That fossils show up in the fossil record fully intact not with several renditions of life that gradually look like the newer model, so they just show up and disappear? You are as blind as you want to be when it comes to evolution, yo make an excuse for what you don't want to acknowledge.

Time is not your friend here resources are also not your friend.

and there is a significant pause before Eve is created:

That is right. God built up man's anticipation by letting him compare every other living thing to this SPECIAL companion that came OUT of him to unite with him.

This is a window into the whole rest of the Bible.
But we don't appreciate it so much until we see the whole rest of the Bible.

Out of God incarnate God builds an eternal counterpart for Christ. And the revelation of the Bible ends with a marriage of the Godman with His corporate city of Godmen. The end of the Bible is really strongly hinted at in the beginning of the Bible.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Genesis 2:18-22 AKJV

That is correct. And nothing major about chapter two renders the general description of Genesis 1 not true -

And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:26,27)

Other then some puzzlement about the order as to when human beings came about there is no contradiction.
To me it is less significant WHEN man was created then that of ALL created lives man is both chapters is the climax of His purpose.

And these are not the only verses in the Bible on the subject. Zechariah 12:1 is important -

"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah,
who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zech. 12:1)

This sequence is important too.
God created the heavens for the earth.
God created the earth for man.
And God created man with a spirit so that he could contact God the eternal Spirit.

The heavens are for the earth. The earth for humanity. And humanity is for God for fellowship.
And the discoveries of modern cosmology seem to reveal a calibration of the constants of the universe indicating that it really is here with an expectation that human beings would live in it.

Michael Denton, a senior research fellow in human molecular biology wrote in Nature's Destiny (1998) -

No other theory or concept ever imagined by man can equal in boldness and audacity this great claim ... that all the starry heavens, that every species of life, that every characteristic of reality exists [to create a livable habitat] for mankind ... But most remarkably, given its audacity, it is a claim which is very far from a discredited prescientific myth. In fact, no observation has ever laid the presumption to rest. And today, four centuries after the scientific revolution, the doctrine is again reemerging. In these last decades of the twentieth century, its credibility is being enhanced by discoveries in several branches of fundamental science.

Fred Hoyle stated about the nature of this fine tuning of the universe -

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

God told us in Zeachriah 12 that the stretched forth heavens are for the earth which is for man. Man in God's image and in His likeness is the purpose of its existence. And man is made with spirit within to receive God the Spirit.

quite a lot happens between Adam's creation and Eve's. This represents something of an inconsistency between the two creation stories. What this says to me is that they should not both be taken literally.

It is just the matter of human creation told from two angles.

Besides this sentence may also just be GENERAL in nature in chapter two:

Now Jehovah God formed from the ground every animal of the field and every bird of heaven. And He brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever he man called any living animal, that was its name.

And the man gave names to all cattle and to the birds of heaven and to every animal of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper as his counterpart." (Gen. 2:19,20)

This is not a serious problem to the description of the six days in the previous chapter. The writer may be speaking generally.

A major problem with the Adam and Eve story is that they'd be seriously inbred after a few generations, so you need ad hoc explanations as to why this wouldn't happen.

I don't think God is a dummy not to account for what needed to happen. They were the most pristine humans. And I don't assume they were as easily plagued with our modern day problems on this side of the fall of man.

It took 900 years plus for such a human to finally run down. Marriage among early brothers and sisters I don't think is inconvenient for God's first humans.

With a 6000 year timescale you don't have much time to explain the genetic variation that does exist between humans and claim that 4 to 13 million years is not enough time for humans to evolve from the last common ancestor with chimps - or that 4 billion years isn't enough time for us to evolve from ribosomes or whatever the first protolife was.

With something like this I just stay tuned. What scientists claim with adjusted changes as time changes. I would not be surprised is one day we see on Time Magazine "Scientist are now reconsidering ancient common parents to all people."

What they say today may change in the future as they learn more.

The stories are different and by insisting on a literal interpretation of both of them you are in danger of missing the meaning in them.

I could write all week about their meaning. But I was raised in a culture where humans were lucky accidents not much better then the cock roach, who will probably outlast people. And these really meaningless hairless apes were on a second rate planet circling a second rate star. Others said meaning was an illusion. Others said life is absurd. I no longer regard these philosophies as realistic.

And if man was insignificant God would not have become a man in Jesus Christ.
I believe man is a center of the universe and Jesus Christ is the center of human beings' existence.

For what it's worth I don't agree with the statement: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." it's just a soundbite. A claim does require some evidence to be taken seriously and if it purports to be a scientific claim it should be falsifiable. The difficulty with intelligent design arguments is that they attempt to justify themselves on the basis of imagined problems with the evolutionary narrative, they don't present themselves as falsifiable scientific narratives. Creationism is fine for Sunday School or Religious Studies classes but not for biology classes.

If intelligent design is not falsifiable it is peculiar that so many educated people put forth the effort to do just that - falsify it.
I stop here.

@caissad4 said
Wow ! You actually believe that the Earth is a disc divide into quadrants with a firmament and windows to let in water from space. THAT is what your holy, holy book says and you are either a liar or a deluded fool. Or do you cherrypick your so-called literal beliefs ?

Bump for sonship.
Well. Are you a flatearther ?

@caissad4

Bump for sonship.
Well. Are you a flatearther ?

No.
I am not a worshipper of all things conservative just for conserativism's sake. Ie. "The OLD way of thinking never needs improving."

And I'll go further. I believe that at times Bible believers will be informed of something which may cause them to re-evaluate how they have assumed the Bible is saying something.

New discoveries or new theories from science Christians can learn something from.

But I know that when I called on Jesus I touched God. And science is going to have to work real hard to convince me that that hasn't happened.

Have you thought some more about how consciousness could have arisen from physical material ? Tough problem, isn't it?

DeepThought,

The difficulty with intelligent design arguments is that they attempt to justify themselves on the basis of imagined problems with the evolutionary narrative, they don't present themselves as falsifiable scientific narratives.

That's not how I see it DeepThought. I see it more this way -

Intelligent design in insurance fraud is accepted as a science.
Intelligent design in archeology is accepted as a science.
Intelligent design in forensic criminology is accepted as a science.

Intelligent design in listening if extra-terrestial life is trying to send signals to human civilization. No harm there. They probably are all New Agers anyway.

Now we come to Intelligent design in biology. The implications of a other than human intelligence in THIS realm raises red flags to some people. They SEE where theological implications COULD be (but not necessarily) be the outcome of Intelligent Design in living organisms. `

"Uh. Let's not go there. Better nip it in the bud."

Money, prestige, political power, influence, high priestly like respectability are all not completely un-involved. The white coated lab scientist is not a Mr. Spock like being with always absolutely no vested interest in her or his own world-views.

A few more are willing to go toward wherever the evidence leads. Others see where it might lead and argue against the evidence as not being worthy of serious consideration.

And others are just "Evolution of the Gaps" religionists. We don't know yet. But the gap will be filled with Evolution by default.

@sonship said
@caissad4

Bump for sonship.
Well. Are you a flatearther ?

No.
I am not a worshipper of all things conservative just for conserativism's sake. Ie. "The OLD way of thinking never needs improving."

And I'll go further. I believe that at times Bible believers will be informed of something which may cause them to re-evaluate how they have assumed ...[text shortened]... me more about how consciousness could have arisen from physical material ? Tough problem, isn't it?

So you do cherrypick.
Good play.

@sonship said
DeepThought,

The difficulty with intelligent design arguments is that they attempt to justify themselves on the basis of imagined problems with the evolutionary narrative, they don't present themselves as falsifiable scientific narratives.

That's not how I see it DeepThought. I see it more this way -

Intelligent design in insurance fraud is accep ...[text shortened]... of the Gaps" religionists. We don't know yet. But the gap will be filled with Evolution by default.

When I say "Intelligent design" I am talking about the Origin of Species and nothing else. Besides, all these other subjects have evolved over time, so your argument is self-defeating here. I'll comment on the first two posts later.

@DeepThought

When I say "Intelligent design" I am talking about the Origin of Species and nothing else. Besides, all these other subjects have evolved over time, so your argument is self-defeating here. I'll comment on the first two posts later.

I think I understand you. But my suspicion remains.

As long as the intelligent design points to people (or intelligent animals) as the agent, it is pretty benign.
That with biological systems the designing agent probably points elsewhere - that's reason to de-legitamize Intelligent Design.

Tell me something. If SETI were to pick up a transmission from outer space which coded out, let us say, the structure of a human DNA molecule accurately in its arrangement, would the scientific community reject the scientific speculation that Intelligent Design was most likely the author ?

Now that same DNA structure they discover in a living cell. How come all of a sudden ID is not science ?

The way I see it, if discerning the operation of intelligent language is ID the place where the evidence resides should be irrelevant.

@sonship said
@DeepThought

There's a way of explaining it less mathematically which people who understand the subject really well can do, the level of mathsiness was just a reflection of my understanding of it.

That was kind of what was asking, a way in which the average layman might understand. The person that I asked finally admitted that it could only be visualized in ...[text shortened]... temporary enemy as the source of independence from God and death.
I'll cut this post here.

The problem with this is that you are accepting that the accounts say different things, but insisting on taking them both literally anyway.

@sonship said

and there is a significant pause before Eve is created:

That is right. God built up man's anticipation by letting him compare every other living thing to this SPECIAL companion that came OUT of him to unite with him.

This is a window into the whole rest of the Bible.
But we don't appreciate it so much until we see the whole rest of the Bible.

Out of G ...[text shortened]... t so many educated people put forth the effort to do just that - falsify it.
I stop here.

Since Fred Hoyle was an atheist and opposed the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it was too creationist (he coined the name in an attempt to ridicule it) I find your quoting him to attempt to support your argument bizarre.

I don't think God is a dummy not to account for what needed to happen. They were the most pristine humans. And I don't assume they were as easily plagued with our modern day problems on this side of the fall of man.

This is what I mean by ad hoc arguments. You need this pristine state to last at least until the time of Noah as there would have been a huge bottle neck there in every animal species. In cheetahs there was a bottle neck a few thousand years ago to the extent that every member of the species can act as an organ donor to every other one. This is not the case in any other species that I know of. This demonstrates that no such bottleneck took place in Humans, in particular, and all other species, in general, all that recently.

If you insist on a young earth this is fine. But your account is not falsifiable, any problem with it is just explained by God being omnipotent. You have untestable hypotheses so the statements involved are unscientific.

@sonship said
@DeepThought

When I say "Intelligent design" I am talking about the Origin of Species and nothing else. Besides, all these other subjects have evolved over time, so your argument is self-defeating here. I'll comment on the first two posts later.

I think I understand you. But my suspicion remains.

As long as the intelligent design points to people (or ...[text shortened]... e operation of intelligent language is ID the place where the evidence resides should be irrelevant.

Well, it hasn't happened has it. In any case, it's pretty unlikely such a complicated signal would survive transmission over interstellar distances through a plasma.

@sonship said
@caissad4

Bump for sonship.
Well. Are you a flatearther ?

No.
I am not a worshipper of all things conservative just for conserativism's sake. Ie. "The OLD way of thinking never needs improving."

And I'll go further. I believe that at times Bible believers will be informed of something which may cause them to re-evaluate how they have assumed ...[text shortened]... me more about how consciousness could have arisen from physical material ? Tough problem, isn't it?

Science does not eliminate God. Science only forensically tells us what happened. It has zero opinion on whose hand was on the wheel. Many scientists believe in God, and many are Christian.

Religionists, on the other hand, start off by discounting science. Why is that? Why ignore the facts of science, in favor of magic? God relies on free will to separate the wheat from the chaff. Free will necessitates a choice. The choice would not be free if there were an obvious, discernable difference between 'God' and 'not God'. But instead of making the choice between 'God' and 'not God', religionists eschew the facts and insist on making the choice between 'God' and 'Science'. This is the wrong path. Science is factual. We should grow up and respect that. But science is NOT somehow 'anti-God'. It's just facts. It is also NOT 'not God'. The real, actual choice should be re-centered on 'God' or 'not-God'. Science shouldn't even enter into it.

@deepthought said
Since Fred Hoyle was an atheist and opposed the Big Bang theory on the grounds that it was too creationist (he coined the name in an attempt to ridicule it) I find your quoting him to attempt to support your argument bizarre.[quote]I don't think God is a dummy not to account for what needed to happen. They were the most pristine humans. And I don't assume they were as eas ...[text shortened]... y God being omnipotent. You have untestable hypotheses so the statements involved are unscientific.

I wouldn't go so far as to say unscientific, the part that is scientific acknowledges that it couldn't happen unless there was divine intervention, confirming it was an act of God. Which is what we have to say when all such types of events like those mean, only God could.

So saying this is an event could only take place because God did it, doesn't disprove God, it only shows that if done, God did it.

@suzianne said
Science does not eliminate God. Science only forensically tells us what happened. It has zero opinion on whose hand was on the wheel. Many scientists believe in God, and many are Christian.

Religionists, on the other hand, start off by discounting science. Why is that? Why ignore the facts of science, in favor of magic? God relies on free will to separate the wheat ...[text shortened]... l, actual choice should be re-centered on 'God' or 'not-God'. Science shouldn't even enter into it.

I don't think that is what some are saying here. It is certainly not what I'm saying at all ever. I love the sciences and probably watch more videos here on anything I can find about scientific anything.
So I agree with you in saying that they can and do go had in hand extremely well. Science should be fact and one that we can trust as most of us don't have the means to do what needs to be done to prove many things ourselves for many reasons.
But personally I need proof of anything that I come in touch with and learn about no matter what it is, because if decide if I'm going to repeat it to anyone I want to know all I can first. I don't like making a fool of myself or telling anyone something that could affect their direction or decisions in life when it comes to something scientific or of a spiritual sense.
As much as I see holes bigger then the sun is with evolution I've always been open for any new and open, proof that might come along to see what it is and to give me a chance to know all I can in case it comes up in a discussion.