The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Evolution, The Flood, and God’s True Nature

I agree with some of that paper’s conclusions. But there is nothing there that is surprising. When a hypothesis is tested, especially in the case of complex ones, the hypothesis itself is rarely directly testable. Instead a testable prediction is deduced from it. In essence what one does it this: If H is true, then so is I, where H is the complex hypothesis and I is the testable (in theory) prediction. This gives us the first step in the following test in syllogism form.

Premise 1: IF H is true, then so is I.

But as is almost always the case in complex hypotheses, the deduction of I from H is never an easy step. The deduction is not clean and usually introduces a number of hidden assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses, A1 and A2 for example, so the premise actually looks more like this.

Premise 1: If H, A1, and A2 are true, so is I.

So, then when I is tested, so must A1 and A2 be tested. But often these auxiliary hypotheses are not immediately obvious to the scientist, so they are not tested initially. It is only after the hypothesis is falsified (i.e., falsely falsified, one might say) and the dogged scientist refuses to give up are these auxiliary hypotheses discovered and tested separately. So, far from being a problem that the paper you linked to suggests, the recognition of these auxiliary hypotheses is a good thing because it forces the scientific community to come closer to the truth in their complex hypothesis testing.

That model of speciation you describe is in fact the allopatric model that is believed to be responsible for most speciation. However, the formation of a million or so species (a conservative, approximate number of extant species) in such a short span of time still boggles the mind.

By the way, evolution does not necessarily require additional mutations beyond the ones already involved in existing genes that are recombined. The requirement for evolution may be met by recombination of existing genes into new arrangements that may suffice to introduce genetic variability that natural selection can act upon. So, what is required in evolution is genetic variation, which can be produced by new mutations or by simply rearrangements of older genetic material in new ways. An extreme example of this occurs in speciation by polyploidy, in which there is absolutely no new mutation at all. What happens in this case is an increase in the number of chromosomal sets beyond the usual 2. What we see in speciation by polyploidy is an instantaneous formation of a new species as the offspring generation receives abnormally 3, 4, or even more sets of chromosomes compared to the 2 in the parents. The offspring cannot interbreed with the parents because of lack of chromosomal pairing at meiosis, the process that produces gametes, but they can among themselves.

Everyone here is consistent, with their own - off-topic message - theologically. Especially when compared, to what folks NORMALLY believe, in a theological, bell-shaped - statistical curve.

Besides, if I am right… Then I am performing a great service - for humanity. :smiley:

And what is the philosophical definition of beauty (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eye))? Which is something the Twilight Zone episode, YouTube video raises at Eye of the Beholder.

The question to ask - is this: If the devil wants to give us things, like the Zombie Apocalypse…Then what does God, want to give us? Well, last night a Pentecostal preacher - gave his list:

Salvation
Sanctification
Gifts of the Holy Ghost
Health
Prosperity

Well, it got me to thinking. My list is NOT so far removed:

Salvation
Theosis
Charismatic gifts
Expect good things from God
Real presence in the Eucharist (How this is so, is a divine mystery. This answer is given, by the Eastern Orthodox and Methodists)

As far as zombies go, this GIF says it all :laughing:

Now we can add contemplation on our end (i.e. Fox Golden Key or Christians practicing yoga)…In order to be more receptive. Let’s look at part of today’s contemplation from the Center for Contemplation and Action

And of course, watching TV shows - like TV minster Joel Osteen.

And since part of this forum thread’s theme is “God’s true nature”…Here’s my view, of what he wants to give us. It’s up to us to choose.:

Food for thought:

  1. Purpose, Goodness, and Evolution, by Trevor Major, which examines some difficulties with theistic evolution.

  2. You know what destroyed Charles Darwin’s faith?,” a short essay by Richard Murray.

According to Bishop Ussher, God created the world on Sunday, October23, 4004 BC. I have no idea how he arrived at that date, but to my way of thinking, Ussher’s asseveration is no less believable than those of modern theorists concerning the evolution of the Universe.

I just finished reading This, and I have to say, it makes a very strong argument for intelligent design. It’s an enjoyable and mind-stretching read. There are little tidbits that fascinated me - such as, Jupiter. Jupiter has saved and is saving the Earth from annihilaton by meteors! The huge gravitational field of the big planet pulls in the meteors from the asteroid belt and other wanderers.
And that darn Moon! Happens to be in a place, the only place it could be to provide its function of keeping the Earth from leaning too far. You have to read it - those are just tidbits in a huge cosmological argument.
Buy it now. Read it fast, Report back. :sunglasses:

Dave, as a side note, Heeren is a sincere Christian and a great writer, but he has changed his position since the last edition of Show Me God—What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God. He now says,

Please let me reiterate:

Blessings.

I may have mis-represented Heeren by using the term ‘intelligent design’! I forgot how loaded a term that was - I was only trying to point out that he made quite the case for the fine-balancing, to the point of being miraculous, of the cosmos and especially in the privileged position that God has put the Earth in- the number of parameters that have to be JUST SO in order for us to even be here. I call that ‘intelligent’ and it certainly is a ‘design’ and I doubt Heeren would back off from those presentations in his book.
As to the evolution angle - maybe Heeren needs to read James Perloff - Tornado in a Junkyard. Devastating to those who have the idea that evolutionists are just SO close to proving their theory. More on that later. I haven’t read the entire book, so I don’t know where he goes from there…
goodreads.com/book/show/195 … a_Junkyard

Don I like that. But is it oooo-sir or us-her? but I like the concept. I know you’ll be able to straighten me out on the grammar :smiley: As far as the date and the context… who the heck knows?

Here’s a Q and A from Quora today:

Why is evolution taught in schools when it hasn’t been proven, in my opinion, to be 100% true?

Perhaps I might ask, why the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse…Or those promoting Miracle Spring Water…are NOT emphasized in religious schools? :wink:

Of course.

Of COURSE you are mistaken, qaz!!

Just kidding :wink: I have heard the term used as a pejorative paired up, usually, with ‘creationism’, by fools that don’t know any better.

Until I started investigating, I had NO IDEA HOW INTELLIGENT the design is!! The book “Show Me God” shows a universe that humbles the imagination and the spirit. Thrilling.

At the beginning of this thread, I mentioned the following:

I just watched a great show today on Netflix: Is Genesis History? (2017)

In this documentary, you can see Mark Armitage examining the soft tissue from a triceratops horn.

Last week, one of Jehovah’s witnesses rang my door bell. When I came outside, she presumed I was ignorant of the things she was telling me. I informed her that I was familiar with her organization. Then she handed me a “Watchtower” magazine, expressing the desire that I would read it.

Late I began to read it. One of the first articles was entitled “OUTDATED OR AHEAD OF ITS TIME?” The subheading read "THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXT BOOK, YET IT CONTAINS STATEMENTS THAT WERE WAY AHEAD OF THEIR TIME. CONSIDER A FEW EXAMPLES.

One of the “examples” was the claim that in Isaiah 40:22, "The Bible writer Isaiah referred to “the circle of the earth,” using a word that may also be rendered “sphere.” I looked up the Hebrew word “chuwg” and the Greek equivalent in the Septuagint “γυρος” (“guros” or “gyros”) and can find no evidence that either word ever means “sphere.”

In all the translations to which I have access, the word is Isaiah 40:22 is not translated as “sphere” although Darby’s translation as “globe” suggests the same idea. It is translated as “circle” in AKJV, ASV, AV, KJ21, LEB, NHEB, YLT, NRSV, ESV, Orthodox Study Bible (which translates the OT from the Septuagint) and interestingly enough the New World Translation (by Jehovah’s Witnesses). The NEB and the Jewish Study Bible render the word as “vault,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible as “disk.” I am confident that Isaiah viewed it the same. Thus:

However, if Isaiah had visualized the earth as a globe, what would it mean for God to sit ABOVE it? For all directions away from the earth are UP!
For example, for those living in Quebec, “up” is exactly the opposite direction from that which is “up” in Australia.

Re the circle of the earth:

creation.com/isaiah-40-22-circle-sphere

Are you aware, they also have their own Bible translation? For the record, I don’t agree with much of their theology. see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

I would pretty much HAVE to be aware, wouldn’t I?— to have written the following in my post above:

In today’s news:

SCIENCE CONFIRMS GENESIS FLOOD ACCOUNT, AGAIN:
[i]Oceans of water found deep within mantle of planet
[/i]

(This article is a reaction to a research paper published last Thursday by the journal Science, titled, “Ice-VII inclusions in diamonds: Evidence for aqueous fluid in Earth’s deep mantle.”)

It begins:

As to the idea that the worldwide Flood of Noah was sent by God, as I said earlier,

Blessings.

EXCITING. From Fox News this week:

In one of the most provocative and misunderstood studies of the year, scientists in the U.S. and Switzerland have made an astonishing discovery: All humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother – an Adam and Eve – who walked the planet 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which by evolutionary standards is like yesterday. Moreover, the same is true of nine out of every 10 animal species, meaning that nearly all of Earth’s creatures living today sprang into being recently from some seminal, Big Bang-like event.

…That’s how Stoeckle and Thaler concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than a quarter-million years ago. “This conclusion is very surprising,” Thaler avers, “and I fought against it as hard as I could.”

…In their report, published in Human Evolution, Stoeckle and Thaler offer other possible explanations, including, Thaler explains, “ice ages and other forms of environmental change, infections, predation, competition from other species and for limited resources, and interactions among these forces.” Whatever the explanation, he adds, the takeaway is this: “all of animal life experiences pulses of growth and stasis or near extinction on similar time scales.” [The Flood of Noah?]

From the linked research summary:

The mass of evidence supports the hypothesis that most species, be it a bird or a moth or a fish, like modern humans, arose recently and have not had time to develop a lot of genetic diversity.

Well, I was wondering where to put this article…from a recent Patheos Catholic newsletter. I’m afraid if I asked folks here:

Where should I put this article?

They may say something like:

Well, I can tell you where to put it. But I don’t think it would fit!

Any, there is the article:

“Life is not about how fast you run or how high you climb, but how well you bounce.”-- Vivian Komori

Interesting!
I lean toward an “old-earth, young-humanity” position, but I could not back that up except in a very general way. These findings might be bolstering for that view.
If you see anything that follows up on this article pls let us know.