Evidence for God from Science

jenwat3 wrote:Yes, I know! One person said I was un-christian simply because our views were different. That REALLY upset me because I have always tried to respect another person's opinion even though I don't agree with it sometimes. Isn't that what this forum is about?

Again, though, I don't debate that there are essentials for being a Christian, but that some doctrines will always be hotly debated. Even Calvinism and Armenianism, though, do agree on the trinity and Christ's divinity
With boundaries.

Check out the essential doctrine page on the home site. That will give you an idea of where we stand here

zoegirl wrote:Check out the essential doctrine page on the home site. That will give you an idea of where we stand here

Still toeing the party line, eh, Z/G?

Interesting debate. But...so much reading...it always gets tedious on this forum and requires a lot of time to give these topics the justice they deserve. Time is a luxury for me these days.

Forum Monk wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Check out the essential doctrine page on the home site. That will give you an idea of where we stand here

Still toeing the party line, eh, Z/G?

Interesting debate. But...so much reading...it always gets tedious on this forum and requires a lot of time to give these topics the justice they deserve. Time is a luxury for me these days.

Wow, welcome back F/M

Haven't heard from you in awhile. Yeah, you;'ll see that the thread on the flood started back up again, have fun

Yikes!...they dumped my avatar!

Forum Monk wrote:Yikes!...they dumped my avatar!

that's too bad, that was a cool avatar

Maybe, I'll drop in for a while but at a much more reduced pace than before and resurrect my avatar. (maybe a new one this time) - but not tonight.

retiredbob wrote:It seems to me that detailed analysis of every biblical passage is filled with the danger of flawed human interpretation. After all, even in Jesus' time, just 2000 years agao, people had to be presented with parables (aka analogies) to help them understand.

Hi retirebob,
This was your first post I see. Welcome to the forum. Unfortunately I noticed it and disagree. I believe Jesus spoke in parables so the people would not understand, as it served the purpose of God.

Matthew 13:9-11 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'[a] 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

So, it seems the interpretation is given to men, but only those whom He chooses. It creates a challenge as to whom you shall believe, in my opinion.

Genesis does not have any problems with physics. The Bible and the data of science fit seamless. The opinion of science is another thing. The theories of science are made with the view that supernatural events cannot happen. This limited view of the universe automatically makes for predetermined results. So when one wades through the current theories of science you must not accept the views of the scientist. You must go to the data and see for yourself what the data actually shows. Take for instance atomic dating of rock. As radioactive decay happens in rock the elements break down. So if you assume the original mix of the elements in the rock and assume that decay rates stay constant as you go back in time then you can determine the age of the rock. These measurements show millions or hundreds of millions of years for the rock. One of the byproducts of this decay is the creation of helium in the rock crystal. These helium atoms do not attach to the crystal structure of the rock, they drift as a gas in a very dense medium. This drift rate is pretty quick and also shows the age of the rock by measuring the helium content of the rock. So now imagine you are a scientist and you want to get published so you can get a good job and use your knowledge of science as your career. So in your investigation of the age of some rocks in your research you find that the rocks using atomic decay is 200 million years and it fits the currently accepted view. Your research will be accepted and any article you write will sail through a peer review process. If however you use the helium content of the rocks that show the rocks are but a few thousand years old you will not get published, you will not get the job, you will never receive a professorship. I show this example because the data in science does not fit the theories that become mainstream science. Sellective reporting of the data is rampant is the scientific community. So when Gretz proposed his massive flood in eastern Washington state he was rejected by his peers. We now know that one of those peers knew where the water came from for his flood. Why did he not speak up? Because he did not want to receive the same treatment as Gretz. It took 40 years but now the Missoula flood is considered fact. No one should ever say that science does not agree with the Bible. The Bible has been consistant for 5000 years. Science changes every few years. I have spent years studying the data of science. That is completely different than studying science. Although there are holes in understanding the universe and having the Bible match is becoming closer every day.

frankbaginski wrote:Genesis does not have any problems with physics. The Bible and the data of science fit seamless. The opinion of science is another thing....

Hi Frank,
Welcome to the forum.
I agree with some of your statements. In general science requires observation and interpretation and it is often the latter that seems to be problematic when different sets of eyes examine the same data. Judgements can definately be skewed by preconceived ideas and a deeply ingrained world-view.

In your post, you cite the ignored evidence of helium drift as an example of ignored or selectively overlooked data. Can you post a reference to this phenomenon; a paper, or web-site which discusses it?

Thanks,
FM

frankbaginski wrote:Genesis does not have any problems with physics. The Bible and the data of science fit seamless. The opinion of science is another thing. The theories of science are made with the view that supernatural events cannot happen. This limited view of the universe automatically makes for predetermined results. So when one wades through the current theories of science you must not accept the views of the scientist. You must go to the data and see for yourself what the data actually shows.

Really? Well sediments which accumulate in the bottoms of lakes keep a yearly record of time. Different seasons create different conditions for a lake which are reflected in different types of sediment layers. In spring and summer, the layer is rich in calcium carbonate (limestone which dissolves in water). Sediments from the rest of the year are rich in organic material. These layers, which are called "varves," pile up year after year and keep a record of the annual cycles.

The Green River Formation, of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, contains a record which is more than four million annual layers deep. Obviously, this means that the lake bottom which accumulated those alternating layers of sediment existed for millions of years. Even this is not the age of the earth, it is only the length of time one particular lake existed.

This process of layer formation is easy to understand and the record of elapsed time is easy to read. This evidence and the evidence of starlight establishes that our earth and universe must be millions of years old at the very least.

For the atomic dating problems you could go to setterfield.org I think you can also find it in the book "In Six Days"
Actually a good internet search will find many articles.

The problem with layered deposits as with most geology is one of assumed cause. I could of course site examples and experts telling one story. Someone else could site other examples and other experts with completely different opinions. This is a fools game that I don't play. The basis for most of current modern geology is an old earth, this applies to biology as well. Once that platform is gone then one can see more clearly what is really going on in the world. Using erosion for the United States one can calculate that the entire country will erode away in about 10 million years. Geology says however that most of the rock we see is hundreds of millions of years old. So either erosion is wrong (it is not) or the dating is wrong (it is). Once you get past the old age problem the rest is pretty simple.

Suppose you have three rocks that you are going to carbon date to see how old the earth is. One comes out of a mine shaft that is very deep the other from say the Gulf of Mexico that is taken from a deep ocean drilling rig and the third from deep inside of the Grand Canyon. All rocks are presumably taken from the same depth measured from sea level in which all three rocks would have been taken at a depth below see level. One rock is measured to be 3.85 billion years old, the second is 5.9 billion years old and the third is 4.75 billion years old. One of the rocks though came from a wayward meteor, comet or asteroid but we don't have the knowledge of which one because all three are relatively made the same in composition. Now how old is the earth? Can't tell can you? Suppose you were able to go to the very center of the earths core and retrieve a sample. Would the pressure and intense heat have an effect on the carbon dating? There are so many theories about how old this planet is, the sun, moon and universe but we as mankind can not come out and say for a fact how old anything really is. Quite frankly I don't think we ever will be able to. The answer is there although and is written everywhere. We are just not able to comprehend it and were never meant to. Just like DNA coding we know what it entails and looks like know but with billions of lines we just can't comprehend how it came about except that they are finally admitting it is of a very highly intelligent design and yet they won't admit that about the universe. Imagine that!