Origin of life, Adam and the Dinosaurs

[shmogie]

If you assume omnipotence, then anything is possible. Now, is it consistent with the story of Genesis? In *that* story, God is certainly *not* omnipotent or omniscient.

God is omnipotent as he chooses. Omniscience is another issue. I don;t believe God is omniscient either by choice or nature. If he were, it becomes problematic to explain free will. I think I can defend the view from Scripture.

 

[Jainarayan]

Based on the actual dates given in the Bible. You can read the Bible and peice them together.

That's what he did, but it's unlikely those are literal times. If Adam fell from grace with God, why would God give Adam a lifespan of 900+ years? I think it's more likely that the 900+ years of Adam's life is not literal, but rather a metaphor for a long life in human terms. We use phrases like "older than dirt" for someone of advanced age ("Betty White is older than dirt"), but no one is actually older than dirt. It's a metaphor.

 

[shmogie]

That's what he did, but it's unlikely those are literal times. If Adam fell from grace with God, why would God give Adam a lifespan of 900+ years? I think it's more likely that the 900+ years of Adam's life is not literal, but rather a metaphor for a long life in human terms. We use phrases like "older than dirt" for someone of advanced age ("Betty White is older than dirt"), but no one is actually older than dirt. It's a metaphor.

Personally I believe it is literal, but either way, as you point out, there is a message and that is what is imporrtant.

 

[Polymath257]

God is omnipotent as he chooses. Omniscience is another issue. I don;t believe God is omniscient either by choice or nature. If he were, it becomes problematic to explain free will. I think I can defend the view from Scripture.

OK, so how do we test the existence of this omnipotent being? Make sure you give a test that would yield a conclusive 'no' if that being doesn't exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But what is in question is does the bible talk about two different kinds of light and water. If it doesn't there are inconsistencies, if it does, there are consistencies. Since the "inconsistencies" are consistent and add up with each other we can assume the author knew what he was talking about. God separated light from darkness and separated the Water between Heaven and Earth. As we can see in Noah, it had already rained enough for the ark to be floating before God opened up the "firmament", the divider between Heaven and Earth. And flooded the Earth with the waters from above. So that's what that is. Some might accept it, others might close their eyes to it, and call them "inconsistencies"

I'm not following. Are you suggesting that the Bible writers thought that rain originated from both sides of the firmament - perhaps from clouds first to get the ark floating - after which the sluices of the firmament were opened allowing water from above it to leak through to complete the flood?

I'm not sure to which inconsistancies you are referring, but according to your comment, if apparent inconsistencies can't be reconciled one with another, it suggests that the authors *didn't* know what they were talking about. I doubt that you mean that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't believe God is omniscient either by choice or nature. If he were, it becomes problematic to explain free will.

Agree.

A lot of Christian theological problems would resolve themselves if the god of the Bible had been called super-aware and super-strong - enough to create and run a universe - but had limitations in those areas. The problem of evil goes away (theodisy), for example. How can God be held accountable for the details of daily life if He doesn't know about them or has more important responsibilities that require his full time attention?

The god I just described also sounds less like what kids would come up with:

A: "My god is bigger and stronger than yours"
B: "My god is infinity-strong"
A: "Mine is infinity-and-one strong"
B: "Well mine is double infinity strong"
A: "Mine is infinity squared strong"
B: "Mine is an infinity of infinities strong"

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

That's what he did, but it's unlikely those are literal times

What the point in listing exact dates if they are not literal?

Sounds like to me it's trying to explain away the book's incompatibility with science.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Agree.

A lot of Christian theological problems would resolve themselves if the god of the Bible had been called super-aware and super-strong - enough to create and run a universe - but had limitations in those areas. The problem of evil goes away (theodisy), for example. How can God be held accountable for the details of daily life if He doesn't know about them or has more important responsibilities that require his full time attention?

The god I just described also sounds less like what kids would come up with:

A: "My god is bigger and stronger than yours"
B: "My god is infinity-strong"
A: "Mine is infinity-and-one strong"
B: "Well mine is double infinity strong"
A: "Mine is infinity squared strong"
B: "Mine is an infinity of infinities strong"

What kid knows about raising numbers to the power of 2?

 

[Polymath257]

What kid knows about raising numbers to the power of 2?

I did. It isn't that deep of an idea.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I did. It isn't that deep of an idea.

Must have just been my childhood then.

 

[Polymath257]

Must have just been my childhood then.

Most of the world has an educational system that does algebra in elementary school. The US is *way* behind on this.

 

[shmogie]

OK, so how do we test the existence of this omnipotent being? Make sure you give a test that would yield a conclusive 'no' if that being doesn't exist.

Lets do a test that totally eliminates the possibility of a God Then lets do another test as to why the Big Bang occurred and then why a huge chain of extremely improbable events, that reached the level of being statistically impossible , created earth, a place almost perfect for the carbon based life forms. Our last test should be how the non living matter of earth combined by chance and burst into life. To the best of my ability I have done all three. They prove to me that the answer to your question is yes.

 

[Polymath257]

Lets do a test that totally eliminates the possibility of a God Then lets do another test as to why the Big Bang occurred and then why a huge chain of extremely improbable events, that reached the level of being statistically impossible , created earth, a place almost perfect for the carbon based life forms. Our last test should be how the non living matter of earth combined by chance and burst into life. To the best of my ability I have done all three. They prove to me that the answer to your question is yes.

And why do you think this chain is statistically improbable? Where are the calculations of the probabilities?

 

[shmogie]

And why do you think this chain is statistically improbable? Where are the calculations of the probabilities?

There are many who have come to the same conclusion, respected scientists, statisticians, and mathematicians, the most prominent of whom was Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer and mathematician who was an atheist. There are more, but you can find it. If you are not so inclined feel free to take my statement as wrong if you choose. When I can, I will try to post something for you.

 

[Polymath257]

There are many who have come to the same conclusion, respected scientists, statisticians, and mathematicians, the most prominent of whom was Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomer and mathematician who was an atheist. There are more, but you can find it. If you are not so inclined feel free to take my statement as wrong if you choose. When I can, I will try to post something for you.

I am familiar with the Hoyle calculation. it is pointed to by a great many creationist sources.

it is also completely wrong in almost every detail.

The main problem is that it assumes the independence of the pieces when we *know* from actual observations that there is not independence. So that yields an artificially low probability that is, truthfully, nonsense.

There is typically many more than one protein that will do any specific job.

 

[shmogie]

Agree.

A lot of Christian theological problems would resolve themselves if the god of the Bible had been called super-aware and super-strong - enough to create and run a universe - but had limitations in those areas. The problem of evil goes away (theodisy), for example. How can God be held accountable for the details of daily life if He doesn't know about them or has more important responsibilities that require his full time attention?

The god I just described also sounds less like what kids would come up with:

A: "My god is bigger and stronger than yours"
B: "My god is infinity-strong"
A: "Mine is infinity-and-one strong"
B: "Well mine is double infinity strong"
A: "Mine is infinity squared strong"
B: "Mine is an infinity of infinities strong"

There is a theological doctrine which I believe ( very unpopular, the theologians who first posited it took a lot of guff) called "The Open View of God". In short it proposes that God does not know what hasn't occurred, unless he uses omnipotence to reach into history and bring it about. However, being God he can envision every possibility, and if he chooses, be prepared to perfectly respond to each. Thus total free will is established, and it totally absolves God of creating evil. To support this among believers requires a lot of Bible exegesis, answering many questions, some a little hostile, and having a thick skin. But I don't believe in an eternal hell, so I am used to the incoming. Without these beliefs, that I have solidly proven to myself from the Bible, I might still be an atheist.

 

[shmogie]

I am familiar with the Hoyle calculation. it is pointed to by a great many creationist sources.

it is also completely wrong in almost every detail.

The main problem is that it assumes the independence of the pieces when we *know* from actual observations that there is not independence. So that yields an artificially low probability that is, truthfully, nonsense.

There is typically many more than one protein that will do any specific job.

There are many others, I will get you some names. I think Hoyle was right as to the universe and the probabilities from the beginning, just the right amount of matter vs. antimatter, all the way through to the creation of earth. Many, Many critical results, totally by chance, in a long chain, resulting in earth, it's environment, it's position in the solar system and it's position in the galaxy.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So your saying that if a kid was likely to become violent, it's okay to murder them?
Also I was referring more to the alleged plagues of Egypt in which the first born citizens where killed because of what their ruler that they have no power over decided to do.

I find that minor children come under the protection of the parents according to 1 Corinthians 7:14.

In a court of law an execution is Not murder. It is adult people who are executed for murder.
Execution is for the sake of justice for the righteous ones.

It was Not God, but Pharaoh who would Not let God's people go,-> so the blood guilt is on Pharaoh's hands.
Remember there were Egyptians who sided with the Hebrews and they left Egypt with them.
Since God is Not responsible for Pharaoh's decision, (remember Pharaoh already had 9 opportunities),
then there is the possibility for a future earthly resurrection for those first born because death pays the price of sin according to Romans 6:7,23.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That pretty much seals the case for the six days being six 24-hour days. In English, we would say that a day comprises one period of continuous daylight and one of continuous darkness. These are two definitions of the word "day" with a specific relationship to one another - one is about half of the other - and the context lets us know that this is what was meant
The third meaning, as with "in the day before electric lighting" doesn't make sense in the context of daylight hours. How many daytimes and nighttimes were there in the days before electric power?

To me, how does Genesis 2:4 seal 6 days being six 24-hour days when ALL of the creative days are summed up by the singular word "day".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No, that is you trying to explain Heaven, which you haven't seen, by things that you have seen. Interesting that the two things in Genesis, the water and light, are also the two things God will destroy us with. The waters from Heaven in the flood, And the Heavenly fire on the last day, "the brightness of his coming", light from Heaven.

True, the world of badness (Not Earth) was washed away by the Genesis Flood, but God, according to Isaiah 45:18, created the Earth to be inhabited. Jesus taught the humble meek will inherit the Earth.
The Earth, according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B, exists forever, so the ' fire' is a symbolic fire.
It is the wicked who will be 'destroyed forever' - Psalms 92:7.
I find it's the words from Jesus' mouth which will execute the wicked according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16.
We are now in the 'last days of badness on Earth' as defined at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Also, so to speak, is Jesus' coming 'millennium-long day' of governing over Earth when earth's nations will be healed according to Revelation 22:2. Mankind will see the return of the Genesis ' tree of life ' thus even enemy death will be No more ever again on Earth according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8.