Evidence for God from Science

Oh yes it is. It may be passed off as science but any careful scrutiny on your part will reveal that it's an 18th and 19th century pseudoscience that tries to establish philosophical naturalism as superior to the Word of God.

Repeating your claim without support does not make it true.

OEC as a position has existed since the early Church Fathers and well before the 18th and 19th century. Careful scrutiny is not required to know that.

Canuckster1127 wrote:OEC as a position has existed since the early Church Fathers and well before the 18th and 19th century. Careful scrutiny is not required to know that.

So have the gnostics and the jewdeizers, so what? There were unbiblical views cropping up to misinterpret scripture before the ink even dried. Maybe we should focus on correctly dividing the Word of Truth.

How come we don't have a 7 million year week when exodus uses the days of creation as the template for what a week is; 6 ordinary days and one ordinary day of rest.

Adam_777 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:OEC as a position has existed since the early Church Fathers and well before the 18th and 19th century. Careful scrutiny is not required to know that.

So have the gnostics and the jewdeizers, so what? There were unbiblical views cropping up to misinterpret scripture before the ink even dried. Maybe we should focus on correctly dividing the Word of Truth.

That's an excellent representation of much of what I've been speaking about. When presented with the fallacy of your statement, which is a simple matter of fact, you retreat to a judgment of the one making the point. Intellectual honesty would be to concede the point you raised which was refuted.

Adam_777 wrote:How come we don't have a 7 million year week when exodus uses the days of creation as the template for what a week is; 6 ordinary days and one ordinary day of rest.

The context of the passage and the point being made. The point of the passage in Exodus (which you haven't referenced, but which I believe I understand you to be referencing within the 10 commandments) is the day of rest and it is equally valid to appeal to the template as literal 24 hour days or periods of time. The usage of the word "yom" can mean either and clearly it means a 24 hour day in that usage in Exodus.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The usage of the word "yom" can mean either and clearly it means a 24 hour day in that usage in Exodus.

This is exactly the point. I show you where God Himself references His own creation account and ties it to literal ordinary days and you separate them without regard for context.

Ex 20:9-11 wrote:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

...not just once but twice, just to show that He's not joking...

Ex 31:15-17 wrote:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Everytime the Pharissees would "help" God with reality by interpreting scripture through their fad concepts and untrainable hearts what did Jesus say?

"Have you not read..."

"Is it not written..."

This is like one of those moments. Have ye not read that for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth?

Canuckster,

You have used a fair amount of special pleading to claim that we have no evidence for a young earth or a worldwide flood when there is plenty for it. Now the question is what scientific evidence is so overwhelming that we must commit to old earth views like the way we commit to a round globe?

Even the Big Bang model defies the speed of light, conservation of mass energy, Boyle's gas law, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics but it's accepted as a scientific theory. For some reason saying that God did it in six days is stark verboten!

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ation.html

Quote from the reference above.

Exegetical Support
The seventh day lacks the concluding “evening/morning” refrain found in the narratives of the other creation days. This indicates God's Sabbath rest is ongoing. Since God's Sabbath rest is unending, the seventh day must be unending.98 The New Testament confirms the seventh day of God's rest is an ongoing reality.99 For example in Hebrews, God invites us, present tense, to join Him in His Sabbath rest:

For we who have believed enter that rest, as he said, 'As I swore in my wrath, They shall not enter my rest,' although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.' And again in this passage he said, 'They shall not enter my rest.' (Hebrews 4:3-5, ESV).

The English translation of Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth...” makes make it sound as though God created everything within the confines of six calendar-days. However, the preposition “in” does not appear in the original Hebrew.100 Rather, the verse is more correctly translated, “For six yôms the LORD made...” The addition of “in” originated with the King James Version translation and “played a significant role in the advocacy of the creation days being completed within 144 hours (6x24).”101 When the verse is correctly translated, it is clear the creation “days” could have been long time periods.

The reference to the Sabbath in Exodus 20 seems to refer to the pattern of “days,” not their duration.102 The emphasis is on the pattern of work and rest, a ratio of six to one, not on the length of the creation days. Exodus 20:9 addresses the work-week of humans (seven 24-hour days); Exodus 20:11 addresses the work-week of God (seven time periods). Thus, as Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer notes: “By no means does this [Exodus 20:9-11] demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six 'days,' any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.”103 In Leviticus 25:4 the pattern of one out of seven is duplicated with six years of planting the land and one year of “Sabbath rest for the land.”104 This further demonstrates the analogy of our Sabbath to God's Sabbath does not demand that the creation “week” consisted of seven 24-hour days.105

Where did you study Hebrew, by the way, or have you?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Where did you study Hebrew, by the way, or have you?

Are you a Hebrew scholar?

Adam_777 wrote:Canuckster,

You have used a fair amount of special pleading to claim that we have no evidence for a young earth or a worldwide flood when there is plenty for it. Now the question is what scientific evidence is so overwhelming that we must commit to old earth views like the way we commit to a round globe?

Even the Big Bang model defies the speed of light, conservation of mass energy, Boyle's gas law, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics but it's accepted as a scientific theory. For some reason saying that God did it in six days is stark verboten!

Have you examined the home site of this DB? Nobody's forbiding your bringing forth the evidence you wish. I've simply asked you to present the evidence and it's not been forthcoming.

OEC is based in a literal rendering of the Bible as well. It so happens that science almost universally, and outside of religious, national and philosphical boundaries affirms that the earth is old.

If you wish to bring science into the picture, that's fine. Either side of the argument is free to use it. My request has simply been that if the creation shows that it is young, then please provide for me a single scientist who has come to that conclusion based upon the available evidence.

If you wish to respond in effect that there's some form of conspiracy at work here by which all nations and disciplines of science are meeting secretly and sending their notes to OEC supporters who are secretly in league with them, to discredit the YEC position then that's fine.

Adam_777 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Where did you study Hebrew, by the way, or have you?

Are you a Hebrew scholar?

Thanks for asking. I have a degree in Biblical Literature with a primary concentration in Greek and New Testament. I have done some preliminary work in Hebrew, but not as much as in Greek. I also have smattering of Coptic and Aramaic.

Now, would you care to answer the question asked in terms of your background, which I notice you avoided?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Adam_777 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Where did you study Hebrew, by the way, or have you?

Are you a Hebrew scholar?

Thanks for asking. I have a degree in Biblical Literature with a primary concentration in Greek and New Testament. I have done some preliminary work in Hebrew, but not as much as in Greek. I also have smattering of Coptic and Aramaic.

Now, would you care to answer the question asked in terms of your background, which I notice you avoided?

The reason I avoid it is because you're trying to strong arm me. Simple question... Is the King James version a reliable translation in all the above mentioned texts? If not, why not. Second, I have Vine's dictionary and a great interlinear Bible put together by scholars. They all say the same things. Part of the problem in this world is people are quick to wave their degrees around to cover up their poor logic.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It so happens that science almost universally, and outside of religious, national and philosphical boundaries affirms that the earth is old.

Please explain to us how we can pull science and philosophy apart? You can't. Epistemology precedes science and you know it. That's why there's a little thing called Philosophy of science, right? Even John Lennox (a science philosopher) will affirm that the Worldview comes first. The question isn't can we do science without biases. The question is can we recognize our biases when we're doing our science so we can stay open to understanding alternatives?

[quote]Where did you study Hebrew, by the way, or have you?[quote]
I wonder if that is a sincere question or an antagonistic jab.

I find it amazing that I can source an article(whales) and Can can read right through it, ignore all the implications and then attempt to turn around. Wow! I mean it is pretty amazing that whale remains are found inland and are dated to such a recent time.

Here is another good one that I have looked into, and am amazed at how few in the scientific community want to discuss.

The Bonobo. Not too many people know much about a bonobo. they are endangered apes that live in a very small part of Africa. Interestingly they can stand and walk upright up to 25% of time. Now science claims they are one of our closest relatives.
Remember Lucy. Lucy was claimed to be over 3 million years old, and a close relative on our human evolutionary tree.

But if you compared the remains of Lucy to a modern Bonobo, the similarities aren't just close, they are nearly mirror images.

Yet we are to believe that Lucy is 3 mil years old. And we are also to believe that her kind are distant ancestors to humans. Yet, in the supposed 3 million years evolution has produced a creature that shares the same height, size, and features that made Lucy a "unique" discovery worthy of indoctrinating millions into evolutionary thinking with trips to museums all around the world. In fact the geography where Bonobos and Lucy reside is close as well. So 3 million years ago we had a creature that in no distinguishable way is different from the Lucy remains. Does this question ever come into focus among OEC or evolutionists? No. It is avoided.


Science is emphatic is saying, "Humans evolved from an ape species that existed about 6 million years ago (sometimes called "Pan prior"). About 2.5 million years ago, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo became separate lineages, as did bipedal woodland apes (e.g., Australopithecines) and our Homo lineage. About 1 million years ago, both the gorilla and chimpanzee lineages split into east and west subspecies because of ice age droughts."

Now, The similarities between Lucy and Bonobos show that these creatures are either identical, or so closely related that evolution has in fact taken a 3 million year hiatus. That branch quit forking.
Does science consider this? NO. they ignore the similarities to Lucy, and jump to the explanation that Bonobos are closely related to humans. In fact you will hear that a Bonobo is closely related to humans more than that you will ever hear that a Bonobo is a related to Lucy.(itself)
That defies everything I can think of as scientific. So why avoid asking the question? Because the consequences are unthinkable. An old earth opens the door for evolution and evolution is utterly dependent on an old earth. It's the elephant standing in the corner.

jlay wrote:

Where did you study Hebrew, by the way, or have you?

I wonder if that is a sincere question or an antagonistic jab.

It was a sincere question asking to determine his familiarity with the subject to gauge the responses. Why is it a threatening question?

I find it amazing that I can source an article(whales) and Can can read right through it, ignore all the implications and then attempt to turn around. Wow! I mean it is pretty amazing that whale remains are found inland and are dated to such a recent time.

You made a reference to an article, asked a question and then when I responded with the answer provided in your own referenced article with one sentence, pointing you to the answer, you proceded to argue with your own source. I can't help you with that situation any further. Your problem is not with me, it is with your source.

Here is another good one that I have looked into, and am amazed at how few in the scientific community want to discuss.

No thanks. You haven't discussed the current subject and throwing something else out there without doing that just deflects attention from that and I'm chosing not to continue playing ring around the rosey with it.