The flood, and meat eating.

Santa, I would suggest turning those critical thinking skills at the presuppositions involved in your current belief system.Take this thread. Much of it is predicated on the concept of a static time-line in the sense of a static past.But let's consider for a moment the what-if the Bible is true, and that when man fell, there was a fall in the physical world at the same time, (the earth was cursed too).What do you think is the most likely way that would occur?Imo, the most likely way is for that to change the past, present, and future.We create limits for God by assuming God works only within linear time, as we do. Personally, I don't believe that's the only way God works.

That's just wrong. Read Genesis 3:17-19, especially: There is a reference in the New Testament to the whole creation "groaning and being in travail."The Bible clearly indicates a change as a result of the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden.This message has been edited by randman, 07-11-2005 01:30 PM

Ringo, it does not state the Fall began meat-eating to my knowledge, but the scriptures overall state the creation "was made subject to vanity" or some such, and imo, states there was a change in the physical universe to a degree.The Fall account does record that animal skins were provided Adam and Eve, suggesting that the animals were killed perhaps.

Part of the reason you think this is so fantastic to imagine or believe is due to your conception of reality which is incorrect. Note your comment "threw things into reverse."That suggests you still view reality within a linear, static time-line falsified now for over 80 years by general relativity, although not in whole concerning the linear part.More to the point, you assume that God is subject to this concept of time, which is the root cause of the error.What exists? What self-exists and how?Quantum physics seeks to answer the basic issues of physical existence, and the more it looks into it, the stranger it is, and the more in line with the concepts of many spiritual traditions, especially the Bible.I would suggest a more modern scientific view of the space-time universe would be to view the historic time-line as a whole. In other words, space-time is reality more than "the universe" in snapshot, which is what most people are thinking about when they speak of the universe. They and you are looking at the universe as a thing which progresses through time, point to point in time, but in reality time itself is part of the universe and all points of time are part of it.Look at the universe as a whole, including all points in time, and then you can see more clearly what I am talking about.Science is beginning to verify there are causal effects from the present backwards to the past. It's still in the beginning stages, but once you begin to see time itself as part of the universe, and the universe itself not "sitting in time" so to speak, then it gets easier to have a more modern and more scientific perspective on the universe, and incidentally, to more easily grasp biblical concepts dealing with how God does or did things.

I also wanted to respond to this as well. The level of changes comment on your part assumes that the probability pattern that we see as a thing does not contain within that pattern the ability to manifest differently.What we see as "real" and measurable is only partly so. Take the concept of a photon. The photon can exist as a wave or a particle, but in reality, exists as neither all the time, but exists as a probability to be a wave or pattern. That's the nature of physical existence, a pattern of probability which happens to occur very freguently in a known pattern.But we don't really understand completely how or why these patterns hold together, or whether the patterns have imbedded within them the ability to appear differently, and some even think they do appear differently via the multi-verse, which is a credible explanation of quantum observations.But regardless of which explanation turns out to be true, the idea that a fundamental change could be made that would in turn cause the probability patterns of all things to manifest differently is a plausible concept, and more germane to this discussion, does not imply any wasting of resources at all.

Wrong. Did you not read the post?There is no need to "recall" and "replumb" as the fundamental existence of all things is an energy pattern, or really information. Change in the information could effect change with no recall, but imo, the change would take place backwards and forwards in time, changing the entire time-line completely.On the question of bacteria or anything we see today, why would you assume that was the way it was originally?That's an assumption on your part. Take away the assumption, and the picture gets clearer, imo.

I think the text indicates that after the Fall, man ate meat. Cain raised sheep and offerred the fat of the lamb, which indicates to me meat-eating.So when we see after the Flood, God telling Noah that meat is for food as well as plants, we are not seeing so much a newly enacted practice, but that as God originally created man to only eat plants, He is affirming that man is to eat meat now, and that this is acceptable. There is a contrast with Adam's time and Noah, but since we don't see God speaking on this matter does not mean that prior to Noah, man was not suppossed to eat meat or anything like that.Imo, the text indicates a systematic change in the universe/time-line (all space-time) with the darkening of man's consciousness.

Ringo,It's not a hard concept to grasp. Note how Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness. They had a sense of guilt. In one sense, their knowledge expanded, but in a moral sense, they consciousness fell, and the text indicates with this fall of man death and all sorts of things occur.In terms of science, I still think you are missing the point. Science is just beginning to explore the fundamental nature of existence, in terms of what we think of as physical reality, and we have just begun to develop a more whole concept of the universe as space-time. These basic concepts need to be adapted into our thinking if we are going to discuss "science" and evidence.As far as my theory here, I would not expect to find a time where no meat-eaters existed because I believe the changes that occurred with the Fall affected the entire time-line, beginning to end.I do think science will continue to make more discoveries concerning time and fundamental existence, and that these discoveries will indicate that the past is not static, as is assumed.

You have evidence interpreted via unproven assumptions. You assume a linear time-line, not because science supports that concept, but because human experience assumed that was the case.But science thus far is eroding the sense of universal time associated with human experience. General relativity has done this, but we are also seeing with the principle of entanglement, that causal effects can occur from the present back towards the past, at least on the quantum level, and thus far, the more we look into time, the more we see it is part of the universe, not something the universe sits in and progresses through.As far as discovering "fossils" that show "the beginning of life" or some such, what beginning was that? Has it remained the same all these years? If you think that, you have not understood my hypothesis here at all. What you would expect is some similarity or connection to the pattern (the time-line) that existed prior, but all would be changed, including the rocks.

Sorry, but you are nearly 100 years behind the times, in terms of science. The concept of universal linear time may prove to be true, but Einstein's concepts of relativity seem to have borne out.Do you have any real evidence to support your view of time?Also, this forum concerns the Bible. The evidence needed thus to explain the validity of something within the context of this particular forum is the text of the Bible, correct?The text of the Bible and most traditional Christian theology support the concept of the Fall of mankind with a subsequent negative consequences, such as death, entering the world.Perhaps you should read someone like CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity" since you seem to want to refuse to accept my claim that the concept of the Fall of Man is a fairly typical view of what the Bible teaches.Of course, the part about how God might have made these changes is not so typical, but you seem to have rejected even the basic claim of the Fall itself. We need to find some agreement on the biblical text, at least that plenty of reputable scholars have for centuries viewed the Fall in the Garden as having serious consequences, such as death.If you want to present an alternative, less mainstream view, by all means go ahead, but don't pretend that the idea of the Fall of man is some novel idea.Now, my idea on how it would have affected the whole time-line may be a little novel. I will grant you that, but once again the context here for evidence is the text itself.This message has been edited by randman, 07-26-2005 03:40 AM

Ringo, I think you are very confused here about what is occuring in this discussion.The text of the Bible supports the concept that man was originally created to eat only plants, or fruit and vegetables.Do you disagree with that?The evidence is the Bible itself.Do you have a problem with that?Now, in terms of what existed prior to the Fall, we can only speculate if we excuse the Bible itself as evidence, but hopefully, trying to examine what we have discovered thus far about time and physical existence could be helpful in trying to come up with a hypothesis of that time.The scientific evidence, I have already mentioned, namely that early indications of scientific inquiries into the nature of time indicate that time is part of the universe and dependant and relative to it, and that the principle of entanglement in quantum physics indicates there can be a causal effect from the present back towards the past.That's what we know from science thus far, but obviously we are at a very primitive stage in discovering the nature of what we call "time."My prediction is that we will discover that the past is not static, and that causal effects backwards in time so to speak add up over long periods of time to create significant change.Science may never though be able to replay the Fall, and thus prove scientifically what occurred. The best we can probably do is show how the scenario I depicted is plausible, and even with that, we are still very early in scientific discovery of even the most basic things, such as how things physically exist, and what physical existence actually consists of.If we are going to have a reasonable discussion about the Bible, such as the effects of the Fall, it is pretty useless on your part to demand scientific evidence before discussing the concept. That does not mean scientific evidence cannot emerge that supports a biblical concept, but the biblical concepts and text predate science and were not the result of science.As for me, I am reasonably satisfied that scientific discoveries do indeed back up the Bible. When scientists, for instance, speak of the Big Bang, to me that is powerful evidence of Genesis "Let there be light" at the beginning of creation.When scientists speak of dark matter and dark energy, that is strong evidence to me of Genesis where God separates the light from the "darkness." "Darkness" in that context always seemed more than mere absence of light. The text suggests a real thing that was separated from light, not a mere absence, and modern science is once again backing the Bible up, at least in the way I see it.But the idea that no biblical concept can be discussed or believed until science "catches up to it" is absurd, imo.This message has been edited by randman, 07-26-2005 04:05 AM

Obviously, that was not the original design, if you accept the biblical text (as I do) as truthful.That's my point here. The Bible indicates a change in the entire system, the very code if you would of the creation, that occurred with the Fall.This message has been edited by randman, 07-26-2005 06:45 PM

Some of your ideas are fairly nonsensical such as: Why do you assume something is "hard" for God?Or, here is another: Why would God have to travel back in time if He is already there? Your assumption here is that despite God creating time, that He somehow is limited by it. That's a false assumption.Moreover, you and others are ignoring the basic issue I raised which is the nature of existence, which quantum physics studies.Take the concept of the multi-verse as an explanation for quantum observations. The idea that a multi-verse can exist is presented as a fully scientific, rational, plausible explanation. Whether it is correct or not, we don't know, but we do know that such a hypthesis could be an explanation for the fact that probability patterns can take on different forms, such as either a wave or a particle. The multi-verse idea is that they take on all potential forms.My point is simply that we already know there are potential forms that the universe can take, and not necessarily a set form. Light, for example, can exist as a wave or a particle, and perhaps exists as neither until it takes on one form or the other. It exists a potential according to a probability pattern, and basically exists as information.Well, it's not that difficult to consider that what we see now is just one potential path and manifestation of the universe's probability pattern, and that the universe could well have been changed all at once, from beginning to end, yes, but also forward. One potential existence was removed via the Fall of man.

Who says? This is an absurd claim on the face of it. First off, we see plenty of seeming unnecessary steps in life. Assuming God exists, one would assume He doesn't mind taking "unnecessary steps", and the most logical assumption is that complexity if something God enjoys, as well as simplicity. "He must be", eh? No, not really. God can be anything He wants within His own nature. The fact that God exists within time does not preclude God from existing apart from time. The Bible also states He created "all things", and Jesus says He is the beginning and the end.You are making a common mistake. No, it is not, but does that make it unscientific. Seems you guys have a double-standard. Total nonsense on your part. God is not physical and thus does not exist in multiple versions. I don't know how you got that, but great way to dodge the entire substance of the thread.

The standard theological answer to your position here is that this is simply anthropomorphism; i.e. we cannot understand God so He presents Himself in terms we can grasp. http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/anthropo.htm No, my argument is the opposite. God created QM so He is not "contingent on" it in the way you suppose. It is a tool of God's, not something ruling over God. No. Maybe I am not following you here, but I see no reason to suggest God views the future only as waveforms since He knows the definite form they will take already. Well, I can go along with the conclusion but not how you got there. Not necessarily. It may be there are dozens of other potential solutions which do not actually exist in a form, but just exist as a potential form. No, it would not. God would be the same in all, if alternative universes exist. They exist as potential paths, sure, but we have no idea if they are realized. No, God does not follow anything. He creates and controls, and allows for us to make choices within the set of potential choices He created. No, you don't because God does not rely on QM principles to exist. QM principles deal with created energy and matter, not God Himself, although they may deal with God's connection to energy and matter.As far as existence, God created our concept of existence, but Gid did not create Himself, but exists, period. The idea He is dependant on the concept of existence in order to be is fallacious logic on your part.This message has been edited by randman, 07-26-2005 08:25 PM