Any Hypothesis or Experiment Ideas to test for Creationism

[Lantern Keirebu]

I'll respond to the biggest questions you have for me, and I'll be wrapping this topic up.

We are both not quite remembering it right. In post #61 you mention a "study" that showed that there was additional punctuation suggesting it was added.
​

Concerning the punctuation marks, I was just referring to the actual verse and how the wording is. Indicating an additional statement. The problem is where do you put the punctuation marks? Because there are no punctuation marks in the oldest copies, it's up to us in determining where to put them. The argument is the english translations got it wrong, and they add words as well. (I'll have to do a study on what earlier translations than the KJV have concerning punctuation) Now the "study" part I was referring to was simply the discussion of past theologians concerning the geneaologies of Jesus. Wikipedia notes the thought of Jesus being the literal descendant of Heli (being Mary's father) goes back as far as John of Damascus.

The manuscripts generally lack puctuation (even periods, etc.). All the evidence and translations state this plainly as the genealogy including and going back from Joseph. If you have evidence of punctuation suggesting otherwise, or a reliable manuscript suggesting otherwise, I've been waiting for many posts to see it.

The greek doesn't clearly state this is Joseph's literal line. The greek states "Jesus the son", and then it has that as was supposed of Joseph. So if the additional statement includes Joseph, and it must, then you could make the argument that Jesus was the actual descendant of Heli. It's a good and strong argument from the greek and the rules of additional statements. Of course not a whole lot of people study this argument. You could easily just accept the english translations we have, and say Joseph was Heli's son. Yet I would say, we all know the translations aren't perfect at all. In fact, there are a few areas where the translations are wrong or doesn't bring out the full meaning of the greek. For us to conclude because the later translations show this is Joseph's literal line, it would be like us saying we are King James Only folk.

Since we both agree that it doesn't go into a "true scientific breakdown", then why would either of us expect it to describe evolution?

I simply argue Genesis is history.

You are right that evolution works by populations evolving, and so from a strictly biological standpoint, Adam was the same species as his contemporaries. You don't seem to understand that in a breeding population, everyone will soon be descended from any single individual in the past. To understand this, please repead the King David number column exercise, except this time, for Adam. You'll see the same thing. If, afterwards, you don't see how a single person Adam is fully consistent with the scientific story, let me know.

We would be descended from a Adam in this case. However, we would also be descended from many others as well. Was Adam more man than the people around him? Of course, I believe it's all moot anyway. This common descent history of hundreds of millions of years goes against the overall message of the Bible.

Because the text is sometimes referring to spiritual death, sometimes physical death, and sometimes death in general. To sort all those out is indeed another whole topic. Feel free to start a thread on it in the scripture section if you like. If you do a little searching, you can find threads on it. Assyrian, in particular, often does a good job explaining this.

Well, it's no question what kind of death is being referred to in the verses I given. It's physical death that man brought in, and really death as a whole. There's no getting around that. If man brought physical death into the world, that clearly goes against the history scientists believe.

That's silly to say that if allegory is used in the beginning, the whole work is useless. Just look at the Gospel of John - it starts out with allegory (allegory, by the way, about Jesus origin).

So you think that the whole Gospel of John is trash, unless Jesus is literally an electromagnetic wave? That John doesn't tell us about Jesus' origin?

This seems like a stretch. There's definitely literal truth behind what John was saying. Jesus was with God in the beginning, and He was God. He did become flesh as we believe. The only thing that is allegorical about John's opening, is his calling Jesus "The Word". There is literal history there in the midst of that allegorical title. So we can at least say there is literal history with allegory. We can't say the same concerning Genesis, if Genesis is allegory. All of it would be made up, except for God creating. In fact the first verse of Genesis will be all we need to know concerning the OT.

The people of Israel were buffeted on every side by gods and creation stories of all sorts. of course what they needed most was a story that showed that their God did the creating.

So the writers of the Bible should have stopped at the very first verse of the Bible, and we would have gotten the main point of Genesis. All that other stuff, was wasted space at best, downright lies at worst.

Sure - has anything every successfully wiped out the human race? If not, then God obviously hasn't had to intervene. Might He need to? I don't know.

If He has to intervene at any point, then there is something wrong with creation. Theoretically, we will be wiped out at some point. That's just the way of life if you ask science. Yet what science says, God as the Bible describes Him is at odds with it. I can't emphasize this enough. I've heard the argument that science answers one set of questions (how), and faith answers another set (why). Both are approaching truth from seperate angles. My problem is science seems to go completely against what our faith is saying.

Cool. Then I'll leave all the mantisplosion stuff until after I hear that.

Well, I won't go into detail, because I don't have much detail to give concerning this. Firstly, I do accept evolution. It's definitely true. However, I reject for the moment that all life descended from a common ancestor. I believe there were many ancestors, and life (creatures) descended from them. These ancestors were the original creation that God created. For instance, God didn't create the mantis, but the mantis is a descendant of one of those first creatures. Perhaps that first creature didn't give birth at that same rate the mantis does today. Yet even so, it was God who first commanded the creatures to multply and fill the earth. Once they reached a certain point, it's possible that God would have "closed the wombs" of all creatures, as it's mentioned that God closed the wombs of many women in the Scriptures.

It doesn't matter if abiogenesis is true or not. It would be just as true if God had miraculously caused the first cells to appear. Your whole response ignored the point that it is life itself that makes a planet inhabitable, regardless of how that life starts.


​

Again I would like to say cells and other microbes wouldn't be considered the same as "life" in terms of creatures. Remember, the diet back in Genesis was vegetables. According to science, trees and plants are alive. Back in the perfect creation, we consumed them. So plants aren't alive in the same sense we are. I imagine the same goes for microbe life. Anything that doesn't have the same type of blood as animals and us. We can scientifically breakdown that difference. (Again science is for us today)

Except that the Bible doesn't define life. You are only referring to a statement that states the obvious - that animals cannot live without blood. That's not a definition.

Please tell me the verse that describes the properties of what is "blood" and what is "not blood", as part of a definition. Thanks.

The Bible gives us as good a definition as we need. We can study our blood, and find the differences for a more defined definition. It's not that the animals can't live without blood, it's that the blood is what seperates them from what we call "life" as a whole. Science says microbes are alive. The Bible says the life of a creature is in the blood. So if something doesn't have blood that is similar to ours and animals, then it is not alive in the Biblical sense of life.


Yet if you are to say that "life" includes all microbes and so forth, you would have to make the argument that God didn't just create man as a single person, but that He created a multitude of individuals in one human being. As you know, our bodies are made up of an untold number of cells, and they are all alive. (and of course you have the organs) If life included all of that, than each of us are actually hundreds of billion/trillions of individuals. So you have the scientific definition of life, and then you have the Biblical definition of life. That definition is simply any creature that has blood.

Also - are you a Jehovah's Witness? That whole "blood" thing is a main point of Jehovah's witnesses, I think that might be one of the many points where they are not in the mainstream of Christianity.

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness

But none of that includes a definition. Is it human blood? Only that of middle easterners? Any mammal? Vertebrate blood? Does it include only endotherms?

Scientifically, we can search for a connection. We can start mammals, and find creatures that have similar blood. Yet we know for certain, microbes like bacteria and so forth, have no blood. So we can definitely eliminate them from the life talk.

Even if you could point to a verse defining blood (and I don't think you can), then you have a classic rectangles and squares argument - where having blood would say something is alive, but nothing to say that other things aren't alive too, just as all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

It sounds like you are mistaking a ritualistic point for a definition. Just as if I said that Jesus' statement that "I am the bread of life" to define "life" as "bread".

I think it's pretty clear cut. Biblical life is simply in the blood. So creatures with blood, are considered life in that context. Of course all this about life being in the blood isn't ritualistic stuff. God Himself said it if you believe the quotations of God in the Scriptures do come from Him. So blood has a special property and/or it represents that unique feature seperating us and the animals from bacteria and plants.

So are you claiming that the Bible doesn't mention Israelite death?

Yes it does, particularly when they are losing battles. Yet everytime they win, it doesn't mention anyone dying. That's not to say there were no casualties. My point is if God gave the Israelites victory over the Canaanites they were fighting, supernatural provision for victory, it wouldn't be a huge thing for God to protect the soldiers in battle. If we can say God gave them victory through supernatural means, then we can also say He could have protected all of them from dying. Yet when Israelites are mentioned in dying, disobedience of some kind isn't too far from it.

So lazarus, and all other cases of death, are judgements for going against God? What about the Israelite deaths? What about the babies drowned in the flood? Job's children? Is there a verse you can point to that death (which kind?) is exclusively a judement from God?

So maybe we agree, since I too see physcial death as a natural result, which God sometimes uses as a judgement? Or do you mean spiritual death?

You know my position concerning death. That Adam's sin brought it in. We simply inherited his corrupted genes.

In those cases as in countless others, God caused physcial death. It's really quite simple and clear.

Yes, but did God create death? When He made the world, did He create where dying was natural thing? The answer I believe is clear that He did not. All those judgments He gave out that caused death, is a seperate thing altogether. Everyone is dying because of Adam's disobedience. God afterward put those who envoked His wrath, to death. Two different issues.

No, a literal reading of every word in the Bibles makes no sense, contradicts both the rest of the Bibles as well as God's revelation in the natural world, and is self -defeating - just like thinking that Exodus means that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on giant eagles (which is what the text literally says).

Never argued for every word in the Bible to be literal.

All truth is from God. There is no need to separate out that which has been found through science vs. other means.

Again science can't be saying one thing, and our faith pointing another direction. It would be like coming to two "one way" signs pointing in different directions. Our observations tells us at best God is indifferent toward us, and at worst God loves to see us in misery. While our faith tells us God loves us more than all of His creation, including the universe. The two describe very different Gods.

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

Because you are reading it today. Because, based on observations today, you think it was written earlier than today. By saying that today's observations can't be trusted, you are going back on your statement that you would avoid last thursdayism.





So if I wrote on a piece of paper "the flying spaghetti monster made everying in the beginning", then that piece of paper would not be observations made today?

Ultimately all of us Christians could be wrong about our beliefs. Just like we believe every other religion is wrong concerning their gods. Yet, we do believe God truly created this place and us right? I believe He gave us an account of history in Genesis. So if He truly created the universe, seen everything from the beginning, and inspired people to write an account of that history, then the account holds that observation that is no longer observable today. (In the sense of processes) Basically as you hint about the flying spaghetti monster, it really comes down to God truly existing. I don't have to worry about when Genesis was written, but by who gave it. If God doesn't exist, my points are moot. If God didn't inspire Genesis, my points are moot. Yet if He exists and inspired this account of history, then it holds information about the past.

Um, so you don't need a degree? You'll find anything you need on your own? It shows that you not only are ignorant, but are ignorant of how much you are ignorant of.

Please don't take that as an attack, but rather as a suggestion to learn.....

Papias

I don't need a degree to learn. It's a good thing to. Pursuing a degree will cost me money I don't have. Yet using the library is free. Using the internet is free. Talking with professors, scientists, and archeaologists is free. Of course not that I'm against furthering one's education. Yet as for me, my goals will be accomplished on another road.

 

[Papias]

Lantern -
I was just sitting down to write a response and I got pulled away. I'll respond soon.

Blessings -

Papias

 

[Papias]

Concerning the punctuation marks, I was just referring to the actual verse and how the wording is. Indicating an additional statement.

Except the actual verse is clear that this is the genealogy of Joseph. I even posted the verse to show that.

Because there are no punctuation marks in the oldest copies, it's up to us in determining where to put them.

It's not about placing punctuation on a string of english words, because the original words in greek give a clear meaning. The punctuation is placed to convey the original meaning in English which is clear in the greek.

The argument is the english translations got it wrong, and they add words as well.

There are plenty of places in the Bibles where the original meaning is not clear. That's why in those places, different translations have different meanings. However, in this place, every translation says the same thing because the original wording is clear.

(I'll have to do a study on what earlier translations than the KJV have concerning punctuation)

The NIV and others are based on the earliest extant manuscripts already. You have to actually get a degree in greek - but you indicated you have no intention of learning by getting a degree.



Now the "study" part I was referring to was simply the discussion of past theologians concerning the geneaologies of Jesus.

GO for it. At the same time, recognize that I've asked for any translation or manuscript, and you've not produced one. When you maintain a position against all available evidence, including the text in all available translations as well as our oldest manuscripts, it starts to look like you've already decided that the actual text is meaningless to you, regardless of Genesis.

The greek doesn't clearly state this is Joseph's literal line. The greek states "Jesus the son",

Please answer clearly and simply: Do you read greek fluently?

The fact is that every translator who has translated our current versions, who are experts in greek, translate it as the genealogy of Joseph.

Also, if you want to argue using John of Damascus, please provide both a reference that he held that view, and a reference that he could read greek.

I simply argue Genesis is history.

But theologians agree it contains poetic elements and other indications that it need not be taken as literal history, in addition to the fact that many early Christians, as well as many today (including the Pope), don't insist that it is literal history. Literal history as never been a position of all of Christianity, and it isn't today either.

We would be descended from a Adam in this case. However, we would also be descended from many others as well. Was Adam more man than the people around him?

Of course he was - that's the point. Adam is the first full human, with a soul. That's OK that we are descended from others. Just because you are descended from your grandfather as well from your grandmother.

Of course, I believe it's all moot anyway. This common descent history of hundreds of millions of years goes against the overall message of the Bible.

Not according to many, if not most, Christian theologians. Are you aware of the Clergy Letter Project? The Clergy Letter Project and the biologos foundation? All top Christian theologians, all of whom affirm that the Bibles are consistent with common descent.

You can personally think that you know your Bible better than all of them (who have devoted their lives to this study) - but isn't that just a little arrogant?

Well, it's no question what kind of death is being referred to in the verses I given. It's physical death that man brought in, and really death as a whole. There's no getting around that.

More baseless statements. If you want to make a statement, please support it. Just stateing your personal bible interpretation as fact and then expecting to be believed just because Lantern said it is hardly the path of humility.

Originally Posted by Papias

That's silly to say that if allegory is used in the beginning, the whole work is useless. Just look at the Gospel of John - it starts out with allegory (allegory, by the way, about Jesus origin).

So you think that the whole Gospel of John is trash, unless Jesus is literally an electromagnetic wave? That John doesn't tell us about Jesus' origin?

This seems like a stretch.
​

It's a stretch to apply your own rule to John as you did to Genesis? Um, no, it's your own rule, not mine.

There's definitely literal truth behind what John was saying.

Of course, and there is literal truth behind the genesis account too - that literal truth being that God is the one who did the creating.

The only thing that is allegorical about John's opening, is his calling Jesus "The Word".

And the whole "light" thing. Jesus is not a photon.

... if Genesis is allegory. All of it would be made up, except for God creating. In fact the first verse of Genesis will be all we need to know concerning the OT.

Why, if both start out with allegory, would one, arbitrarily, be "trash", while the other is truth? I'm simply asking you to be consistent with your own rule.

So the writers of the Bible should have stopped at the very first verse of the Bible, and we would have gotten the main point of Genesis. All that other stuff, was wasted space at best, downright lies at worst.

Just like how John should have stopped after the first verse? John also give the main point of the whole Gosple of John right at the start - that Jesus is God made flesh, the savior. Again, it sounds like you've already decided your bible has no value to you.


More later........


In Jesus-

Papias

 

[Papias]

lantern wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

All truth is from God. ...

Again science can't be saying one thing, and our faith pointing another direction. It would be like coming to two "one way" signs pointing in different directions. Our observations tells us at best God is indifferent toward us, and at worst God loves to see us in misery. While our faith tells us God loves us more than all of His creation, including the universe. The two describe very different Gods.

....
I've heard the argument that science answers one set of questions (how), and faith answers another set (why). Both are approaching truth from seperate angles. My problem is science seems to go completely against what our faith is saying.

.....

This, I think, is the crux of our discussion. We seem to differ mostly in how we see the current world, as shown by science. I see it as compatible with God, you don't. These Christians here explain how in much better ways than I. Home | BioLogos

Originally Posted by Papias

Cool. Then I'll leave all the mantisplosion stuff until after I hear that.

Well, I won't go into detail, because I don't have much detail to give concerning this. ..... Perhaps that first creature didn't give birth at that same rate the mantis does today. Yet even so, it was God who first commanded the creatures to multply and fill the earth. Once they reached a certain point, it's possible that God would have "closed the wombs" of all creatures, as it's mentioned that God closed the wombs of many women in the Scriptures.​

​

The rate of birth only changes the time to overpopulation, and really not by much due to the math (a geometric progression). Your solution only delays, and does not prevent, the decision over kids=death, so it really doesn't change anything. If you are going to rely on God ending all children, then he does so sooner or later, and still, children= death. I think it is a greater God who gives us children, as Jesus himself said.

Firstly, I do accept evolution. It's definitely true. However, I reject for the moment that all life descended from a common ancestor.

Yes, it is common descent that really is the issue for creationists. Common descent is very well supported by the evidence, as shown in the 29+ link I gave earlier.

Anything that doesn't have the same type of blood as animals and us. We can scientifically breakdown that difference. (Again science is for us today)

No, we can't. It is a series of gradual changes. For instance, our blood is only slightly different from a dog, a little more different from a bird, a little more different from a fish, a little more different from a worm, a little more different from the intracellular fluid of bacteria, a little more different from the intercellular fluid in plants, and so on.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the blood thing. You say that "life is in the blood" is a definition, I say it is not a definition.

Never argued for every word in the Bible to be literal.

Cool, that gives us a little more common ground.

We also may have to disagree on you idea that Genesis is somehow immune from your point about current observations. Your reading of Genesis itself, your idea that Genesis is older than 1 year old, your idea that genesis hasn't been changed and rewritten over time, are all current observations/suppositions made by you.

Yes, maybe we can start to wrap this up (as I've started to do above on some points), by seeing where we agree and disagree. Either way, it's been a fun and interesting converation.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Lantern Keirebu]

Yes, this has been a very interesting discussion. There's a lot of things we've talked about, and it's probably better to break them down into their own topics as you mentioned earlier. I'll let your response be the last word here.

 

[frogman2x]

Yes, this has been a very interesting discussion. There's a lot of things we've talked about, and it's probably better to break them down into their own topics as you mentioned earlier. I'll let your response be the last word here.

I agree. I am sue we will bump into each other again.

Grace and peace

kermit