What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

So this is super frustrating. For some reason I can't insert quotes today so I will have to respond as best I can without them. I will try to wrap some things up so that we can move on to some of the other things on our list
On the fine tuned universe I feel you missed the point, a computer simulation necessarily includes a bunch of assumptions that we can't verify without another universe to examine and so it remains speculation.
On design you seem to be saying that your definition of design does not include intent. If you have a criteria for what design is then we can examine it but if you are just going to claim that everything is designed then it is a vacuous term and can't be used to support anything.
Evil god: I read that article and the author makes the same mistake that most people do. He asserts things about the nature of good and evil and about the gods that are not proven. But even if you allow him his unfounded premises it still all falls apart.He says that we can't explain gradations of good but of course we can in the exact same way that gradations of evil can be explained on the good god hypothesis. Likewise this idea that the evil god has a mixed nature and this somehow is logically inconsistent is plain false. First your good god has the same problem of having created and allowing evil (for a purpose sure bUT still did it) second having a nature that intends evil but contains some elements of what might be called good is not a logical inconsistent position.
Then as if realizing that the argument has not been a good one he punts to Pascal and his horribly flawed wager. If you actually want to argue that pascal has a point we can follow that up later. For now just ask you self what force pascals wager has in light of the thousands of God and hell concepts that have been advanced over the course of human history. Do you choose based in the best heaven to go to or on the worst hell to avoid?

On slavery, Egyptian and otherwise
Yes Egyptians kept slaves, probably Hebrew ones you seem to be saying that this justifies the killing of the firstborn . So to be clear had I been alive at that time and kept a Hebrew slave (and was cruel to them) you as God would be justified in killing my three year old son as a punishment for what I did. Correct ?
On other slavery questions. The bible does not condone kidnapping and I never said it did, I said that slave owners in the south used the bible to support their owning of slaves, if you disagree you need to read up on the history a bit.
Finally and most importantly I wonder if you are deliberately misreading the bible. When I cited the passage where God says to buy slaves from the nations around you, the part that says don't buy or take Hebrew slaves because you can't treat Hebrews ruthlessly and as such you are only allowed to buy foreigners as slaves, your response was (who is doing the selling). Can you see that this in no way responds to the issue? On what basis do you argue that God does not condone slavery in light of the passage where God flat out says to buy slaves ?
I find this same lack of critical reading in your response to the question of judges. It says god was with them and they went down and failed to drive them out, in a section that was all about using military means to drive people out of the land the Israelites were supposed to get. And you claim to see no evidence of warlike conflict. you seem to be saying that trying to drive a people group out and failing is somehow conflatable with being too scared to engage, I am not sure what to say. Maybe ask yourself if you are really reading what the passage says or if you are trying to force it to fit your theology .

You asked me a bunch about morality and the basic thrust was if there is no absolute standard how can anything be judged moral or immoral. Basically when humans disagree about morality we need to discuss it and come to a conclusion. We may need to revise those determinations as we learn more about our world but that is the basic idea. I would point out that theism has the same problem. You claim god is the fondstion for all these morals but then admit that his morals are different from yours, that humans simply can't understand him. Basically on your worldview moral is whatever god says it is but he has not bothered to communicate it to his creature (well he did in the law but even though Jesus tells you to follow that you don't and of course the law doesn't cover all the modern questions of morality, also I notice that although you said my wait was over you only cited new testament passages about the law instead of the old testament as the question asked).
To drive the point home I am going to go back and type your definition of lying word for word...

"Nuances of sin can be quite enticing. Yet we objectively have a standard in which we rely on to tell us that yes it is lying if you intentionally deceive someone without using words. Yes, we objectively lie if we ask others to lie for us. And yes, it is possible to lie by omission. All objectively immoral based on a moral standard ingrained within us. Can people lie by omission and call itmoral? Yes, is it. No. "

So based on your definition of lying, one that god has put on your heart , god is a liar.
He sends spirits to lie on his behalf in numerous places in the bible and as we discussed earlier in thessalonians deceives people himself .

We also seem to disagree about predestination . You still seem to claim that God can predestin things and still allow free will but haven't supported that in any way except to say that the bible teaches predestination and also the bible teaches free will. The idea seems to be that because the bible can't contradict itself that this proves that the two are not logically inconsistent. You can see I hope that this is not a valid argument. If you can show that free will and predestination are a paradox (Thanks for pointing out my misuse of that ) and not a contradiction please do so.

Finally I wanted to make a quick response to this article you linked about eve. First his argument does not engage with the one we have been having really in any way. The author assumes eve has moral knowledge and culpability . The article does make a great point about the serpent not being Satan though, I have argued that exact thing in other threads. Best of all though it makes testable claims! It says that snakes are experts at taking advantage of rhetorical opportunities in a way that will trip up humans. Since you seem to believe that the Genesis story is a literal one I would love to hear if you agree with this assessment and how it compares to your experience of snakes in life generally.

A couple extra questions . ..
you seem to now be arguing that God has predestined everyone for heaven, did you mean to do that? Remember that Jesus collects all those that the father gives him and looses not a single one but they all get sanctified. So if this is your position you are saying that literally every human soul ever created gets to go to heaven.

You said that you don't have the relevant expertise to adress the flood. What is your educational background (I am an education undergrad and special education masters in deaf and hard of hearing , a certified asl interpreter. So I am not an expert in anything outside of those areas but I find I am still able to research and talk reasonably on many subjects outside those areas), what areas would you say you are sufficiently qualified to comment on without relying on experts?



I know I missed a bunch of stuff, I will try to get to some of it when the site lets me cite again. Also I have not yet read the article about Jewish genetics

I like our conversation too, it is always interesting to me to find out about what others believe and you have been very courteous .

I'll be back in a bit to respond to this and then we will go on to our specific subject yet to be decided.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So this is super frustrating. For some reason I can't insert quotes today so I will have to respond as best I can without them. I will try to wrap some things up so that we can move on to some of the other things on our list

Ok.

On the fine tuned universe I feel you missed the point, a computer simulation necessarily includes a bunch of assumptions that we can't verify without another universe to examine and so it remains speculation.
On design you seem to be saying that your definition of design does not include intent. If you have a criteria for what design is then we can examine it but if you are just going to claim that everything is designed then it is a vacuous term and can't be used to support anything.

I am thinking of this as our next topic so I'll leave this. Is that agreeable to you?

Evil god: I read that article and the author makes the same mistake that most people do. He asserts things about the nature of good and evil and about the gods that are not proven. But even if you allow him his unfounded premises it still all falls apart.He says that we can't explain gradations of good but of course we can in the exact same way that gradations of evil can be explained on the good god hypothesis. Likewise this idea that the evil god has a mixed nature and this somehow is logically inconsistent is plain false. First your good god has the same problem of having created and allowing evil (for a purpose sure bUT still did it) second having a nature that intends evil but contains some elements of what might be called good is not a logical inconsistent position.
Then as if realizing that the argument has not been a good one he punts to Pascal and his horribly flawed wager. If you actually want to argue that pascal has a point we can follow that up later. For now just ask you self what force pascals wager has in light of the thousands of God and hell concepts that have been advanced over the course of human history. Do you choose based in the best heaven to go to or on the worst hell to avoid?

I don't think evil god can be the same in regard to good vs. evil and evil vs. good. Evil in regard to God is that evil is the privation of the Good of God but if you have an evil god privation would not be good. There is no underlying goodness from which to draw.

On slavery, Egyptian and otherwise
Yes Egyptians kept slaves, probably Hebrew ones you seem to be saying that this justifies the killing of the firstborn .

You must have missed what I said, I said that if they had not taken the life of a firstborn Hebrew baby they would most likely have a first born animal die.

So to be clear had I been alive at that time and kept a Hebrew slave (and was cruel to them) you as God would be justified in killing my three year old son as a punishment for what I did. Correct ?

Nope see above.

On other slavery questions. The bible does not condone kidnapping and I never said it did, I said that slave owners in the south used the bible to support their owning of slaves, if you disagree you need to read up on the history a bit.
Finally and most importantly I wonder if you are deliberately misreading the bible. When I cited the passage where God says to buy slaves from the nations around you, the part that says don't buy or take Hebrew slaves because you can't treat Hebrews ruthlessly and as such you are only allowed to buy foreigners as slaves, your response was (who is doing the selling). Can you see that this in no way responds to the issue? On what basis do you argue that God does not condone slavery in light of the passage where God flat out says to buy slaves ?

I am not aware of any place in the Bible that claims you can't buy or take Hebrew slaves because you can't treat Hebrews ruthlessly?

I find this same lack of critical reading in your response to the question of judges. It says god was with them and they went down and failed to drive them out, in a section that was all about using military means to drive people out of the land the Israelites were supposed to get. And you claim to see no evidence of warlike conflict. you seem to be saying that trying to drive a people group out and failing is somehow conflatable with being too scared to engage, I am not sure what to say. Maybe ask yourself if you are really reading what the passage says or if you are trying to force it to fit your theology .

I agree, I don't find it plausible that God would not Himself be able to do so.

You asked me a bunch about morality and the basic thrust was if there is no absolute standard how can anything be judged moral or immoral. Basically when humans disagree about morality we need to discuss it and come to a conclusion. We may need to revise those determinations as we learn more about our world but that is the basic idea. I would point out that theism has the same problem. You claim god is the fondstion for all these morals but then admit that his morals are different from yours, that humans simply can't understand him. Basically on your worldview moral is whatever god says it is but he has not bothered to communicate it to his creature (well he did in the law but even though Jesus tells you to follow that you don't and of course the law doesn't cover all the modern questions of morality, also I notice that although you said my wait was over you only cited new testament passages about the law instead of the old testament as the question asked).
To drive the point home I am going to go back and type your definition of lying word for word...

"Nuances of sin can be quite enticing. Yet we objectively have a standard in which we rely on to tell us that yes it is lying if you intentionally deceive someone without using words. Yes, we objectively lie if we ask others to lie for us. And yes, it is possible to lie by omission. All objectively immoral based on a moral standard ingrained within us. Can people lie by omission and call itmoral? Yes, is it. No. "

So based on your definition of lying, one that god has put on your heart , god is a liar.
He sends spirits to lie on his behalf in numerous places in the bible and as we discussed earlier in thessalonians deceives people himself .

This I would like to have as a specific topic as well. So morality can wait until then if you agree.

We also seem to disagree about predestination . You still seem to claim that God can predestin things and still allow free will but haven't supported that in any way except to say that the bible teaches predestination and also the bible teaches free will. The idea seems to be that because the bible can't contradict itself that this proves that the two are not logically inconsistent. You can see I hope that this is not a valid argument. If you can show that free will and predestination are a paradox (Thanks for pointing out my misuse of that ) and not a contradiction please do so.

Anytime. Will this be a topic you would like to address more fully?

Finally I wanted to make a quick response to this article you linked about eve. First his argument does not engage with the one we have been having really in any way. The author assumes eve has moral knowledge and culpability . The article does make a great point about the serpent not being Satan though, I have argued that exact thing in other threads. Best of all though it makes testable claims! It says that snakes are experts at taking advantage of rhetorical opportunities in a way that will trip up humans. Since you seem to believe that the Genesis story is a literal one I would love to hear if you agree with this assessment and how it compares to your experience of snakes in life generally.

Are you kidding? You haven't had any conversations with snakes?

A couple extra questions . ..
you seem to now be arguing that God has predestined everyone for heaven, did you mean to do that? Remember that Jesus collects all those that the father gives him and looses not a single one but they all get sanctified. So if this is your position you are saying that literally every human soul ever created gets to go to heaven.

No, that is not necessary. God calls all but He knows the ones specifically who will choose Heaven.

You said that you don't have the relevant expertise to adress the flood. What is your educational background (I am an education undergrad and special education masters in deaf and hard of hearing , a certified asl interpreter. So I am not an expert in anything outside of those areas but I find I am still able to research and talk reasonably on many subjects outside those areas), what areas would you say you are sufficiently qualified to comment on without relying on experts?

Don't get me wrong, experts in the field are always important but I don't have the education in Geology to determine what is accurate in their interpretation of the evidence. Biology is my area with a interest in Astrobiology and Cosmology which I've researched on my own.

I know I missed a bunch of stuff, I will try to get to some of it when the site lets me cite again. Also I have not yet read the article about Jewish genetics

I like our conversation too, it is always interesting to me to find out about what others believe and you have been very courteous .

You have as well. I look forward to our next topic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is simply false. Faith is about trusting God not about the reality of God.

You need to believe that there is such an entity to trust in the first place.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You need to believe that there is such an entity to trust in the first place.

There you go...bingo. Faith is not blind, you have to have a certainty about God before you can trust/have faith in Him.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There you go...bingo. Faith is not blind, you have to have a certainty about God before you can trust/have faith in Him.

And that certainty is based on...

 

[bhsmte]

You need to believe that there is such an entity to trust in the first place.

Some tend to skip over that reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And that certainty is based on...

Experience and evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Experience and evidence.

Then why would faith be required at all?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why would faith be required at all?

Have you ever had faith in someone? It is a walk of trust. Trusting that they will be there for you. Trusting that they want the best for you. Being there when things are hard and you are struggling? Its like that. Faith is putting your trust and submission to God's will. Being a Christian is not easy because submitting to anyone goes against our own will.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Have you ever had faith in someone? It is a walk of trust. Trusting that they will be there for you. Trusting that they want the best for you. Being there when things are hard and you are struggling? Its like that. Faith is putting your trust and submission to God's will. Being a Christian is not easy because submitting to anyone goes against our own will.

But you first need to believe that this entity you purport to trust actually exists. You can't trust someone you don't believe to be real.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But you first need to believe that this entity you purport to trust actually exists. You can't trust someone you don't believe to be real.

That is exactly right.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is exactly right.

Then you see the problem? How is that belief justified?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you see the problem? How is that belief justified?

The same way all things are justified. By experience and evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The same way all things are justified. By experience and evidence.

Then you don't need faith.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you don't need faith.

Yes, we do need faith.
Have you ever had faith in someone? It is a walk of trust. Trusting that they will be there for you. Trusting that they want the best for you. Being there when things are hard and you are struggling? Its like that. Faith is putting your trust and submission to God's will. Being a Christian is not easy because submitting to anyone goes against our own will.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, we do need faith.
Have you ever had faith in someone? It is a walk of trust. Trusting that they will be there for you. Trusting that they want the best for you. Being there when things are hard and you are struggling? Its like that. Faith is putting your trust and submission to God's will. Being a Christian is not easy because submitting to anyone goes against our own will.

Now you're just repeating yourself, and equivocating.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now you're just repeating yourself, and equivocating.

Because I already told you what faith is and why we need it. You are the one repeating yourself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because I already told you what faith is and why we need it. You are the one repeating yourself.

Actually, no you didn't say why we needed faith in the religious sense. You just equivocated.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually, no you didn't say why we needed faith in the religious sense. You just equivocated.

We need faith to trust God. It isn't something you just do even when you know God exists. It is a growing relationship and it is from faith that it grows. It is very hard to have the mindset that allows God to be in control of your life. Seriously. Faith is more about submission that one likes to think. As you have faith, you begin to see the outcome of your faith and in that you learn to trust God with your life, all aspects of your life. Remarkably, it turns out to be even more liberating that you expect.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Yes, by not being with God you are against Him and are subject to Satan.

I know I am subject to Satan, I just want to know if you actually think I've chosen Satan. It doesn't really matter, it's just for curiosity's sake.

1. Yes. 2. Yes, the generation that "sees" all these signs which is our generation.

Good. You agree that in Luke 21 Jesus makes a prediction about a specific group of people being alive to see his return even though he doesn't know when that return will be. In other words lack of knowledge about the date of his return didn't prevent him from making a prophecy about who would be alive to see it. You must therefore abandon your argument that Luke 9:27 can't be referring to the Second coming because Jesus didn't know when that would be.

Three of the disciples wrote about this and only one had a break in the passage. That tells me that it belongs together.

Not according to the article you linked. According to that article major changes in idea were often but not always separated. The opposite is not true (as far as your article states), i.e. that related points were generally together but were sometimes divided by page breaks. So this means that at least one author considered the prophecy and the Transfiguration to be separate ideas worthy of delineation by putting them in separate chapters. The other authors simply didn't bother, a practice that was not uncommon according to your article.

That makes no sense. Why would it matter if He never talked about another imminent event in a short time span? Why would He?

You have been arguing that Luke 9:27 is about the Transfiguration rather than the Second coming. I pointed out that it is bizarre to talk about an imminent event (six days in the future) as if it were going to happen in the distant future. If you could have provided other examples of Jesus doing this it would support your interpretation. But you can't, which means you have yet to rebut the point. Why talk about an imminent event as if it were going to happen years from now?

I didin't say that Jesus couldn't be wrong. He said that He didn't know the time He would return, so being wrong would be due to His lack of the timing of this event. It makes more sense because of the necessary elements to His coming. You have to understand Daniel's prophecy and how it all comes together other than just this passage.

As established above, Jesus' lack of knowledge about the date of his Return is irrelevant because he makes a prediction in Luke 21 about who will be around to see it. As for the "necessary elements of his coming," what necessary elements weren't around when Jesus made his prediction? How does the wider context of Daniel's prophecy support the otherwise counter-intuitive notion that Jesus said "this generation" but meant a generation 2000 years in the future rather than the people to whom he was addressing his prophecy?

• Romans 8:29-30 "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"

Did God foreknow you? IF God foreknew you and we know He did if He knows everything then He predestined you and every person ever born to be conformed to the image of His Son. Free will comes in by choice. It is your choice to go in the path that God destined you for or for you to take your own. We have passages that claim that God predestined certain people for certain purposes as well. However, that will not overrule man's own choice.

It seems like a case where the Bible contradicts itself when it talks about predestination (everything being planned in advance) and free will. I don't see how this can't be considered a contradiction whereas you can't see how it would be.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
I believe that God took away Pharaoh's will at the moment for His own purposes. It however, did not alter his destiny of his eternal choice. God did not punish Pharaoh for the moment that God hardened his heart, he was punished for his own free will choices.

So you are saying that God is willing to subvert free will as long as it doesn't alter the subject's salvation, correct?

I really don't know. I think that when evil rises to the extent that there is no hope for man to choose to repent and their are children who are trapped in this evil that God feels mercy for them is better than free will.

Logically if God brings souls to him without them choosing him, them choosing him cannot be his most important consideration otherwise he wouldn't do it. It seems that having his creations live with him is more important. If he is willing to forgo having certain souls choose him, why not others? Why not help those whom he knows will suffer damnation otherwise? Are people not exposed to Christianity going to Hell too? It seems to me that they are as unable as a child to choose Christ.

See above.

The above excerpt doesn't address the actual question here. Unless you are conceding that killing children before they can choose to accept or reject God is a violation of free will undertaken for mercy's sake. Otherwise, please answer the question I posed. X requires Y. You remove Y. Can you still have X?

Scripture says He is good, my experience says He is good. There are even within our limited human experience where something may appear to be immoral but be good and moral just the same. I believe I am justified in believing that if God is good as I have experienced and others in the Bible even have experienced and HE is truly Just and omniscient then it must be good. If I can think that there is a good and moral reason with only my limited human ability then I am justified to believe that there is a good and moral reason. That moral reason for instance, the survival of all mankind in the future. If all mankind would be eliminated if this action was not taken then the good far outweighs the bad actions that were necessary to insure mankind's future.

In the end it is just faith. You believe that all his actions bring about the best possible outcome for humanity, even if you can't articulate in any detail how certain things align with characteristics such as lovingness.

Yes. Hell is the separation from Good. There is no good in hell.

You just said that "whisking away evil" is not acceptable to God because the evil still exists. Yet these evil souls still exist, even in Hell. So why is it acceptable to allow evil souls to exist but not to allow them to exist in their bodies in similar isolation from God and his believers?

I believe that everyone is called but we are free to accept or reject.

Too vague to address the point. Do you believe that God calls all of us in the way I describe? With a momentary flash of true understanding of his love and glory?

So without observing A and not A this law would not exist? How if we were not here to observe A and Not A would it cease to be valid?

If it's true as we have observed it to be, then the law would exist regardless of our awareness thereof. But we will never know with 100% certainty.

Faith is the only way in science to establish whether or not our beliefs do comport with reality or whether they comport better with reality than another belief. Science is based on the fact that we have faith that the universe is orderly and can be comprehended in a correct way, that tomorrow will be the same as today and yesterday. Science can only make sense if our minds are reliable and can comprehend the universe. The Bible only makes those claims and reality confirms it. Theism is a better explanation for why the universe is orderly and can be comprehended by human beings made in the image of God Himself.

All Christian denominations to be Christian believe that Jesus lived and died on the cross and rose again. All Christian denominations do believe that Jesus lived and died on the cross and rose again.

We've discussed this before. It makes evolutionary sense that our faculties would accurately perceive reality. This explanation is perfectly sufficient without injecting theism.
Also, you haven't actually addressed why Jews, Muslims and Hindus all think their religious beliefs make the most sense with reality if faith and reason are actually useful in finding the truth of the matter. Why are there so many (sometimes extremely) different Christian beliefs if reason and faith are actually useful tools for finding the one true set of beliefs?
You think that reason-guided faith approaches truth at least as well as science does. So why are all these denominations not being winnowed out? Sure they all believe in Christ, but they also believe a bunch of different things. Are they all equally correct? If not, why isn't reason-guided faith causing all these different beliefs to be rejected?

So you agree that you being an atheist makes them incorrect? If not, what makes you think they are incorrect?

You seem to have latched on to a throwaway statement. I was simply saying that as an atheist I don't think any of the multitudes of theistic beliefs are correct. A discussion here about the existence of gods is not what I'm interested in.

The whole Bible supports this claim. WE don't become sinless we become able to not sin. We after Christ paid for our sins here on earth are free from the debt of sin and no longer are bound by it or have a desire for it. Christ gives us by accepting His payment in full the ability to desire not to sin.

The whole Bible supports this claim but you can't give me a single quote that does. Interesting. Again, my argument is based on God's omnipotence ("with God all things are possible"). Yours is based on mere assertion unless you can actually provide some scripture to support it. And of course you yourself said that it is "when we are dead and take on our spiritual form that we can be sinless". Now you wish to retract that and say that we merely become able not to sin. Can you support this distinction with scripture?

You've also ignored the challenge to provide any scripture stating that it is beyond God's ability to create someone like himself.

In some cases yes.

So despite the fact that we know he's willing to do it sometimes (meaning there are factors that outweigh us actively choosing God) he still allows that majority of his children to burn in Hell.

You haven't shown that God doesn't call everyone.

An impossible task, particularly given the vagueness of what you mean when you say "call". I'm specifically talking about an obvious, Paul-level sign. Or a flash of understanding of God's true glorious nature and his love for his creation. Are you arguing that God calls everyone in that way?

And you didn't respond to this scenario at all: If you knew your child was going to go out and kill someone in cold blood, landing them in jail for the rest of their life, would you say nothing because they should be allowed to choose their own path? Would you tell them once or twice that they shouldn't do it? Or would you do everything in your power to convince them to make the right choice?

I have.

I'm pretty certain you haven't. Please link the post wherein you address the argument that the author uses the present tense ("every living thing with which the water teems")and is not therefore describing the past state of sea life but rather the sea life that was present at the time of writing.

I have responded to this repeatedly, my only choice is to conclude that you are not reading my posts.

My apologies if this is the case. Please link me to the post where you discuss the problematic (for your interpretation) fact that Genesis refers to "great beasts" of the sea when the largest beasts in the sea during the Cambrian were one to two meters long. It seems like the author meant "great beasts" to refer to things like sharks and whales which existed in his time rather than roughly human-sized animals that lived hundreds of millions of years prior.

I argue by the way I view the Scripture, it fits with the evidence and I believe that is the way it was meant to be read.

You're describing eisegesis. You have certain scientific data, you believe the Bible is 100% truth and so you are trying your best to read Genesis so that it fits that scientific data. I'm reading the actual words written by the author. "Every living thing with which the water teems". The author was communicating the best science of his day, not modern science.

So we interpret it differently.

We do. But my interpretation is based on the actual words written. Again, you claimed that Genesis is a chronological record from the "beginning to the present time". Either provide the scripture to support this or concede that such scriptural support does not exist.

I would agree with that. I believe that I am justified in my belief that the possibility of angiosperms exists noting that there is no actual evidence for them but there is evidence for plants. I also would note, we should even consider that the types of plants and seed bearing plants that we know to be angiosperms were most likely not the same as the ones we see today. So they would not even have to be what we see today that early and still be characterized in the same way we characterize angiosperms today.

I believe that concession concludes this portion of the discussion. Genesis does not align with the available scientific evidence.