[_ Old Earth _] Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to find?

[Sinthesis]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

So are you saying that the supernatural never leaves physical evidence of its activity, even when that activity is manifested through major physical events such as the alleged biblical flood?

I'm saying there has to be a void in understanding the relationship between a natural, observable effect and a presupposed supernatural cause, otherwise the supernatural loses its mystery and becomes natural. Spooky perhaps, but predictable and natural.

Within this void anything and everything can be positioned to reinforce a belief about the supernatural. Yet because this structure can't actually connect back to the foundation of the shared world we observe, it can't be proved, only accepted or rejected as a belief.

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

Not when you have a larger population to decrease the possibility of deleterious genes being expressed. The new mutation whether good or bad can be latent in a population as a recessive, multiplying in to many many individuals, before less related 4th cousins might finally produce a homozygous offspring which expresses the new mutation.

In the flood story, you have TWO individuals (seven of some kinds). And that is all the genetic diversity you have AT ALL for many generations. Meaning ALL harmful recessives will be in ALL offspring and high chance of 50% of the following generation and thereby highly expressed as soon as the 4th generation because there is no way to dilute it with any examples that don't have it.

Whereas in the non-flood situation, you have a large population and one individual has a mutation and mates spreading that mutation (if itis recessive) among many generations and family branches before it gets doubled ("homozygous" or both alleles matching). Or if it's dominant, all of the offspring will have it no matter which other parent, and all of their offspring will have a 50/50 chance of having it. If it's good, it will have lots of otherwise diverse genes to live among. If it's bad, the rest of the population not having it will be what survives. This external gene source develops diversity for the gene quickly and also spreads non-fatal good stuff quickly.

Not so the flood example. One pair. Any harmful or even just "disadvantageous" recessives will almost certainly be in a large proportion of the mating pool within 2 or 3 generations.

so how do you know that there was such a large population. can we speculate or observe such a population? no we cant.

by that thinking i say that theres no chance that any alien could travel to earth based on current science theories on light speed.

therefore no alien has ever visited earth nor could. its not likely. who btw is to say that god didnt hold back illness? who is to say that? you and werent there.


thus leading me back to the cross, you and i know that no man can live dying that death therefore why should i believe that despite the logical thought as you just presumed given todays world that a man could die likewise and live again?

origins and the debate is kinda a pointless for science to bother as well we have bigger things to worry about. food shortages, diseases etc.

 

[Deavonreye]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

I'm saying there has to be a void in understanding the relationship between a natural, observable effect and a presupposed supernatural cause, otherwise the supernatural loses its mystery and becomes natural. Spooky perhaps, but predictable and natural.

Within this void anything and everything can be positioned to reinforce a belief about the supernatural. Yet because this structure can't actually connect back to the foundation of the shared world we observe, it can't be proved, only accepted or rejected as a belief.

So, it seems that you are saying that IF you believe in the supernatural, then it had a play in events, . . . though no evidence is found. So, basically, it is just a huge assumption that often flies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Especially the flood story.

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

So, it seems that you are saying that IF you believe in the supernatural, then it had a play in events, . . . though no evidence is found. So, basically, it is just a huge assumption that often flies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Especially the flood story.

hello the cross does just that buddy! that is the point do we trust the way its written or not?

if God said this is how it happened and left out details as most history classes dont teach it all they touch on the more important stories.

so why then believe the cross? where does it stop?

 

[Sinthesis]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

So, it seems that you are saying that IF you believe in the supernatural, then it had a play in events, . . . though no evidence is found. So, basically, it is just a huge assumption that often flies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Especially the flood story.

I'm saying that once you believe the supernatural had a direct play in events, then even the absence of physical evidence might itself be believed as evidence the miracle was even greater than originally expected.

 

[Rhea]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

so how do you know that there was such a large population. can we speculate or observe such a population? no we cant.

On the contrary, we can observe quite well what happens with tiny populations. And we can look at fossil (and other) evidence that gives either direct evidence or strong clues about the sizes of populations.

 

[Rhea]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

I'm saying that once you believe the supernatural had a direct play in events, then even the absence of physical evidence might itself be believed as evidence the miracle was even greater than originally expected.

This could be true. It would be evidence of a Trickster God; one who will do things and plant evidence to trick humanity into thinking something different happened, for what ever reason.

So the lack of evidence of, say, expected migrations patterns would itself be evidence of the nature of the god.

 

[Sinthesis]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

hello the cross does just that buddy! that is the point do we trust the way its written or not?

if God said this is how it happened and left out details as most history classes dont teach it all they touch on the more important stories.

so why then believe the cross? where does it stop?

The thing is that we Christians generally don't attempt to use pseudo-science to explain various expected details peculiar to our particular interpretation of the Resurrection Miracle. Rather it's accepted as an act of God.

 

[Sinthesis]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

This could be true. It would be evidence of a Trickster God; one who will do things and plant evidence to trick humanity into thinking something different happened, for what ever reason.

So the lack of evidence of, say, expected migrations patterns would itself be evidence of the nature of the god.

God is not a trickster, even though some would rather believe in a 'Trickster God' than challenge their grandiose visions of Young Earth Creationism and a Global Flood. Pity.

Psa 19:1 ¶ [[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.​

Often we can't accept the beauty of what God shows us, but instead insist reality must conform to our own ideals. Vanity.

 

[Deavonreye]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

Rhea beat me too it. We seem to be insinuating a "trickster god" here. Hiding evidence, and even planting false "evidence" to trick scientists into believing the world to be "FAR older than it actually is", or "creating a fossil record that couldn't be from hydrologic sorting so it would lead people astray, even though the global flood happened". There would be no reason to stack the evidence if there was nothing to hide.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

I'm saying there has to be a void in understanding the relationship between a natural, observable effect and a presupposed supernatural cause, otherwise the supernatural loses its mystery and becomes natural. Spooky perhaps, but predictable and natural.

Within this void anything and everything can be positioned to reinforce a belief about the supernatural. Yet because this structure can't actually connect back to the foundation of the shared world we observe, it can't be proved, only accepted or rejected as a belief.

So is that a 'Yes' or a 'No'? It looks rather like a 'Yes' to me, which opens up the door to the concept of God as a trickster deity (like Loki) or even deceptive (like Satan).

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

I'm saying that once you believe the supernatural had a direct play in events, then even the absence of physical evidence might itself be believed as evidence the miracle was even greater than originally expected.

Except that while the supernatural is offered as a cause of physical events, there is no indication that the evidential consequences of the caused events were obliterated. The only need to invoke this speculation appears to be the obvious fact that the events in question have no physical evidence to support the idea that they ever took place at all. Which rather looks like a great deal of special pleading.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

The thing is that we Christians generally don't attempt to use pseudo-science to explain various expected details peculiar to our particular interpretation of the Resurrection Miracle. Rather it's accepted as an act of God.

I thought we were looking at evidence of a supernatural creation and the Noachian flood? And what do you mean by 'pseudo-science' anyway? The 'Resurrection Miracle' had post facto physical consequences, after all: Thomas required physical evidence of the event, etc.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

God is not a trickster, even though some would rather believe in a 'Trickster God' than challenge their grandiose visions of Young Earth Creationism and a Global Flood. Pity.

Psa 19:1 ¶ [[To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.]] The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.​

Often we can't accept the beauty of what God shows us, but instead insist reality must conform to our own ideals. Vanity.

So is it your argument that Earth is not young and there was never an epic global flood of biblical proportions? If your biblical reference 'does what it says on the tin', then clearly the Universe is billions of years old.

 

[Sinthesis]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

So is that a 'Yes' or a 'No'? It looks rather like a 'Yes' to me, which opens up the door to the concept of God as a trickster deity (like Loki) or even deceptive (like Satan).

No; the supernatural by definition could leave deceptive evidence (or no evidence at all), but that is ruled out by scripture.

Except that while the supernatural is offered as a cause of physical events, there is no indication that the evidential consequences of the caused events were obliterated. The only need to invoke this speculation appears to be the obvious fact that the events in question have no physical evidence to support the idea that they ever took place at all. Which rather looks like a great deal of special pleading.

That's because the 'physical events' required of pop culture creationism and a global flood ARE special pleading.

I thought we were looking at evidence of a supernatural creation and the Noachian flood? And what do you mean by 'pseudo-science' anyway? The 'Resurrection Miracle' had post facto physical consequences, after all: Thomas required physical evidence of the event, etc.

I was responding to another's post. 'Pseudo-science' is the apparent use of scientific methods to justify a belief that, by definition, can not be explained by scientific methods. It's like trying to discover some rules of magic as a justification for believing in magic. Ultimately it's a crutch for those with a weak faith; like faith training wheels.

Thomas required physical evidence that the person standing before him was the same person he had seen dead just days before. The desire for this evidence was foolishness, as any deity capable of resurrection surely could have also removed any physical scars. The scars were left as an indulgence to Thomas, but they in and of themselves were not proof of the supernatural resurrection. That still has to be accepted by faith.

So is it your argument that Earth is not young and there was never an epic global flood of biblical proportions? If your biblical reference 'does what it says on the tin', then clearly the Universe is billions of years old.

That's more or less what I believe.

 

[lordkalvan]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

Thanks for your thoughtful post. It clarified your position in a cogent and informative way. My replies are comments rather than questions or challenges as such.

No; the supernatural by definition could leave deceptive evidence (or no evidence at all), but that is ruled out by scripture.

Or ruled out by the fact that the supernatural is a figment of humanity's collective imagination.

That's because the 'physical events' required of pop culture creationism and a global flood ARE special pleading.

Indeed they are.

I was responding to another's post. 'Pseudo-science' is the apparent use of scientific methods to justify a belief that, by definition, can not be explained by scientific methods. It's like trying to discover some rules of magic as a justification for believing in magic. Ultimately it's a crutch for those with a weak faith; like faith training wheels.

Good points.

Thomas required physical evidence that the person standing before him was the same person he had seen dead just days before. The desire for this evidence was foolishness, as any deity capable of resurrection surely could have also removed any physical scars. The scars were left as an indulgence to Thomas, but they in and of themselves were not proof of the supernatural resurrection. That still has to be accepted by faith.

Yes. For my part, I have tended to regard the story of 'Doubting' Thomas as a morality tale made up to put backbone into waverers.

That's more or less what I believe.

Me too.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

To clarify my position for those who may be interested.

1 I am an Old Earth Creationist.

2 I do believe in Noah's flood being a worldwide event

3 I do not believe that the fossils etc are the results of a flood, because floods mix things up, while the geological record shows distinct and well-defined stratification everywhere.

4 I do not believe in the theory of evolution, because there is far too much evidence against it.

One huge such piece of evidence is the explosive emergence of zillions of new species, genera, families, right up to phyla in the Cambrian layer with absolutely no ancestors or antecedents in the fossil record.

For those who may not know, the Cambrian is the lowest but one layer in the geological strata. There are traces of life in the pre-Cambrian layer, but they do not amount to much.

5 I do not believe that life could possibly have arisen from inanimate matter. Pasteur finished that off. We are therefore left with Divine Creation as the only viable possibility.

It has its problems of course, but given the supernatural origin of so many of these things, it is unrealistic of scientists to demand 'natural' proof of the existence of the supernatural.

The very word 'super-natural' excludes such a possibility.

This also has the very interesting spin-off that if scientists begin their experiments and observations by excluding the possibility of supernatural intervention, then it is hardly surprising that they finish up by excluding the supernatural.

And then saying 'Hey look - there's no natural proof of God's existence.'

Footnote:

In connection with my rejection of the possibility that life evolved from inanimate matter, perhaps these citations may be of value to the unbiassed readers:

Chemist Dr. Grebe:



“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.”

Researcher and mathematician I.L. Cohen:

“At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.”

Evolutionist Michael Denton:

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

Hoyle is even more unpleasant about it:
“The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” [140]
—Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle

 

[jasoncran]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

asynchritus i was thinking you were a oecer.

 

[Free]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

4 I do not believe in the theory of evolution, because there is far too much evidence against it.

5 I do not believe that life could possibly have arisen from inanimate matter. Pasteur finished that off. We are therefore left with Divine Creation as the only viable possibility.


Footnote:

In connection with my rejection of the possibility that life evolved from inanimate matter, perhaps these citations may be of value to the unbiassed readers:

Chemist Dr. Grebe:



“That organic evolution could account for the complex forms of life in the past and the present has long since been abandoned by men who grasp the importance of the DNA genetic code.â€

Researcher and mathematician I.L. Cohen:

“At that moment, when the the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt. …the implications of the DNA/RNA were obvious and clear. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that Evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today.â€

Evolutionist Michael Denton:

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.â€

Hoyle is even more unpleasant about it:
“The notion that… the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.†[140]
—Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle

Firstly, there is no such thing as an unbiased reader. Second, apart from abiogenesis, it is a false dichotomy to make one choose between evolution and creation, just as it false to pose science against Christianity or Scripture.

 

[Asyncritus]

Re: Assuming Creationism is true (and the flood) what evidence would we expect to fin

Firstly, there is no such thing as an unbiased reader. Second, apart from abiogenesis, it is a false dichotomy to make one choose between evolution and creation, just as it false to pose science against Christianity or Scripture.

I don't agree that it is a false dichotomy to choose between evolution and creation. Just as it isn't a false dichotomy to choose between a flat earth and a sphere.

And in any case, no one's MAKING anybody choose between the two.

Mind you, I've heard the horror stories about people opposing evolution being refused tenure in the university Biology departments.

If true, that's a form of coercion, isn't it?