Evidence for God from Science

Those who get worked up about YEC seem to believe that science has it all wrapped up and there is clear understanding scientifically that the creation is old. Scientifically, we cannot even account for more than 90% of the mass of the universe and we are going to dogmatically say we know the age of the earth? As God, held the sun in the sky creating a longer day, why could he not supernaturally create the earth and all living things in six literal days. Why does this give people such consternation?

So when do you interpret that the Sun was created swordfish?

swordfish7 wrote:Those who get worked up about YEC seem to believe that science has it all wrapped up and there is clear understanding scientifically that the creation is old. Scientifically, we cannot even account for more than 90% of the mass of the universe and we are going to dogmatically say we know the age of the earth? As God, held the sun in the sky creating a longer day, why could he not supernaturally create the earth and all living things in six literal days. Why does this give people such consternation?

Most people here who don't believe YEC, also don't think that science has it all "wrapped up". And nobody but YECs are dogmatically saying we know the age of the earth. And, nobody is saying that God couldn't have created everything in six 24-hour days.

So swordfish,

Do you have anything except straw man arguments? Or are you just going to continually repeat common YEC talking points, without actually addressing what people here believe?

But it Is Strongly suggested that everything Wasn't created in six 24-hr days. We observe Now -- a day consisting of 24-hr periods of time. It's suggested that it simply isn't realistic -- people who take the Bible Too literally are thought of as being insufficiently science oriented. The verse saying that 'a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day' as Biblical evidence of Literal 1,000 year 'days'. But isn't a day determined to be 24-hrs because that's how long it takes This planet to rotate around once and it takes 365 or so days to go completely around the sun?

We Do have a rough idea as to the age of the earth. In the thousands of year range Rather Than the millions of or billions of years, cause That is where a person Could come up with theistic evolution / a compromise. But - if a person is willing to 'fudge' in Some areas -- who's to say What 'other' areas are being fudged on for Whatever reasons.

crochet1949 wrote:But it Is Strongly suggested that everything Wasn't created in six 24-hr days. We observe Now -- a day consisting of 24-hr periods of time. It's suggested that it simply isn't realistic -- people who take the Bible Too literally are thought of as being insufficiently science oriented. The verse saying that 'a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day' as Biblical evidence of Literal 1,000 year 'days'. But isn't a day determined to be 24-hrs because that's how long it takes This planet to rotate around once and it takes 365 or so days to go completely around the sun?

We Do have a rough idea as to the age of the earth. In the thousands of year range Rather Than the millions of or billions of years, cause That is where a person Could come up with theistic evolution / a compromise. But - if a person is willing to 'fudge' in Some areas -- who's to say What 'other' areas are being fudged on for Whatever reasons.

Crochet,

If this was a response to me, you lost me. The bible gives no age of the earth. So, in order to come up with an estimate, we need to look elsewhere.

And as we've discussed before, if you believe the sun wasn't created until the 4th day, how do you have any basis for calling the first 3 creation days, 24 hours long. You yourself said a day is 24 hours because of the sun.

No sun, no 24 hour days. It's not rocket surgery.

Edit***

Crochet,

Here's something for you to think about. Read Genesis 2:4:
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Taken literally and concretely, as you take the other parts of Genesis, according to this verse, how long did it take for God to create heaven and earth?

All we are doing is pointing out the problems with the way YEC's interpret the bible,and yet it seems they are just overlooked for dogma. Why? The bible does not tell us specifically how old the earth is,but it does tell us the earth is old. Of course though then it comes down to what translation a person chooses to believe,so that all we ever really get is biased opinion over the truth.

The KJV teaches the earth is old and it was written in 1611,before the age of the earth was known whether or not you are an old earther or young earther and before it was such of an issue.About 500 years ago.Keep in mind evolution has only really been around for about 150 years.It was discovered in the 1700' s the earth is old by Christian men who started modern day science and young earth creation science started in the 1930's by George McCready Price who was influenced by Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White but it was not until about the 1970's that young earth creation ministires started trying to prove the earth is young with young earth science and evolution is a lie,so young earth science is not very old at all and is a new teaching.I know the Gap Theory has always been taught by Baptists and Pentecostals mostly.

Genesis 2:4 " These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and of the earth when they were CREATED,in the day that the LORD God MADE the earth and the heavens.". This proves the earth is old except for the translation you prefer has removed the phrase "These are the generations" to make you not know the earth is old,so then you decide which translator's you prefer.
But I find it extremely telling why certain translators left off the phrase " These are the generations" for Genesis 2:4 that tells us the heavens and earth are old and yet they do not remove this phrase from Genesis 5:1 and Genesis 6:9.They just do not want you to know the heavens and earth are old because there were generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,therefore the heavens and earth are old.

RickD,you seem to be saying dogmatic things. Why are you so against me? Now I do think God is very capable to make the first three days in three 24 hour days, with or without the sun. The fact that the writer talks about day and night seems to me to emphasize the point of 24 hour days. The passage that you quote saying that a day is a thousand years points to the fact that God is not bound by time - hardly a case to say that the days were not literal 24 hour days. I would say the sun was made on the fourth day but it could have been the first. It is not rocket science to realize that 24 hours can pass with or without the sun!

swordfish7 wrote:RickD,you seem to be saying dogmatic things. Why are you so against me? Now I do think God is very capable to make the first three days in three 24 hour days, with or without the sun. The fact that the writer talks about day and night seems to me to emphasize the point of 24 hour days. The passage that you quote saying that a day is a thousand years points to the fact that God is not bound by time - hardly a case to say that the days were not literal 24 hour days. I would say the sun was made on the fourth day but it could have been the first. It is not rocket science to realize that 24 hours can pass with or without the sun!

Nobody is against you. We don't accept the young earth interpretation and have given reasons why. Don't take it personal,that we disagree with YEC. There are very good reasons to reject it.You're the one being dogmatic,you are accusing us of what you are doing,plus you have accused us of things that are not true and yet at least I have explained why you are wrong. Nothing I have said is wrong,made up about YEC,it is the truth,I don't use lies and slander to explain why I reject YEC. I tell the truth.My conscience is clear with God.

swordfish wrote:
RickD,you seem to be saying dogmatic things.

Like what?

Why are you so against me?

I'm not against you. I'm tired of YECs misrepresenting what others believe, and then arguing against that misrepresentation.

I do think God is very capable to make the first three days in three 24 hour days, with or without the sun. The fact that the writer talks about day and night seems to me to emphasize the point of 24 hour days.

So, there's day and night without the very thing that causes day and night on the earth?

The passage that you quote saying that a day is a thousand years points to the fact that God is not bound by time - hardly a case to say that the days were not literal 24 hour days.

Wasn't my quote. Crochet was talking about that.

I would say the sun was made on the fourth day but it could have been the first.

You sure about that? Does your "literal" reading of scripture allow that?

It is not rocket science to realize that 24 hours can pass with or without the sun!

That's obvious, but has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If there is no sun, what basis do you have for a 24 hour day, that is the time it takes for the earth to rotate? And why would the earth rotate at all if there was no solar system until the 4th day?

I'll ask you the same question I asked crochet:

Read Genesis 2:4:
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Taken literally and concretely, as you take the other parts of Genesis, according to this verse, how long did it take for God to create heaven and earth?

Ablecainsbrother, we need to understand that the meaning needs to be gathered from the original language - here I think Hebrew. We don't just pick the translation that most closely matches what we want to say! Some translations are better than others and that is why the best Christian denominations will require their ministers to study greek and Hebrew.

Why isn't God powerful enough to have create many stars, including our Sun, in the beginning with the heavens and the Earth as declared in Genesis 1:1? Isn't God powerful enough?

This won't go anywhere really, so I'll just state two points for whatever they're worth and then try to get this topic out of my system:

• Nowhere does Scripture say the first three days were replaced by one property we associate with a day, a time period of 24 hours.
• Scripture also doesn't clearly say that one other property associated with a day is intended, that a day just demarcates a new start and end. (which ultimately results in Day-Age interpretation)

Therefore, according to the Historical-Grammatical "literal" hermeneutic, I see that Day-Age rates just as good as those who believe the Sun wasn't created until Day 4. Both commit the mistake of adamently declaring something about day that isn't clearly stated in the Genesis 1 passage. We should really just stop where Scripture stops, have your opinion, but why can't we look at the matter in a more open-ended manner rather than everyone being so dogmatic?

As I see it, AiG have done a "wonderous" job creating their Creationist materials and marketing them to Christians, churches and schools. They have influenced many generations of Christians to only believe Genesis can be read in one way, which is their interpretation that God is the source of light on the first three days until the Sun is created on Day 4. This throws out the door the Historical-Grammatical (literal) hermeneutic they claim favours their position whenever they delcared one needs to believe in the literal words of Scripture.

Sadly, the saturation of their "educational" resources have clouded the way in which Genesis is read by many today, even non-Christians. An AiGism of sorts is being overlaid upon Scripture. Interestingly, I came to Scripture at an earlier age, somehow avoided or either didn't care for whatever I was taught in Sunday school (though I didn't attend church much with parents). When I read Genesis for the first time, and really paid closer attention to words in Scripture, I had no real opinion, and little scientific understanding on the matter. I saw "days" as simply demarcating a new beginning and end to a segment of God's creation. Day was the metaphor used to symbolise this. I knew nothing of Day-Age, nothing of YEC, not until I came into contact with Ken Ham who declared one must accept the days are 24 hours or they don't believe in Christ.

Now I'm much older, and have gone over this issue probably literally a 1000 times. It is reading into Scripture, if we use the literal Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic, to say that evening and morning isn't actually intended on the first three days. This interpretation of the Sun being created on Day 4 becoming engrained in believers is something that has happened through saturation of an AiG interpretation in churches, Sunday schools and the like. Pastors trying to get answers to how to square Scripture with science, so many turned to these "Creation Scientists", and sadly they should have just been looking into methods of interpretation and studying Scripture while leaving science to the real Scientists who study scientific matters.

I'm now leaving the discussion, because I know there's no real point to this.

RickD wrote:

swordfish wrote:
RickD,you seem to be saying dogmatic things.

Like what?

You assume the worst in YECs and accuse me of creating straw men! You treat me as ignorant when I have been looking at the topic for 40 years where I have a higher degree in the sciences.

RickD wrote:

Why are you so against me?

I'm not against you. I'm tired of YECs misrepresenting what others believe, and then arguing against that misrepresentation.

I make my points from 40 years of experience. Even at one time I was an OEC. Could it be that you are blind to the bias because you recently left YEC? You feel betrayed by YEC? Possibly you have not looked at it as objectively as you should have!

RickD wrote:

I do think God is very capable to make the first three days in three 24 hour days, with or without the sun. The fact that the writer talks about day and night seems to me to emphasize the point of 24 hour days.

So, there's day and night without the very thing that causes day and night on the earth?

The day and night are used to show it was a 24 hour time period. Why would the writer use day(morning) and night if he meant it figuratively?

RickD wrote:

The passage that you quote saying that a day is a thousand years points to the fact that God is not bound by time - hardly a case to say that the days were not literal 24 hour days.

Wasn't my quote. Crochet was talking about that.

Yes, you are correct.

RickD wrote:

I would say the sun was made on the fourth day but it could have been the first.

You sure about that? Does your "literal" reading of scripture allow that?

Why do you have to treat me with condensation? Can you treat me with respect as a person with my own perspective and not some mindless programmed YEC. This attitude was what I was referring to in my original post. The OEC picks up the same condensation that the evolutionist has for YEC - that we are ignorant and mindless concerning science and your case think I am ignorant of scripture.

RickD wrote:

It is not rocket science to realize that 24 hours can pass with or without the sun!

That's obvious, but has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If there is no sun, what basis do you have for a 24 hour day, that is the time it takes for the earth to rotate? And why would the earth rotate at all if there was no solar system until the 4th day?

It has everything to do with it! God transcends time so he already knew the basis of what a day is. Do you think God is stupid? Come now, you are smarter than that!

RickD wrote:I'll ask you the same question I asked crochet:

Read Genesis 2:4:
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Taken literally and concretely, as you take the other parts of Genesis, according to this verse, how long did it take for God to create heaven and earth?

We read the bible like any other book - the literal parts should be taken literally and the figurative parts figuratively! Now this is the transition verse that moves from the 7 days of creation to the story of man and the fall. We sometimes speak like this, "I remember the day when I was the quarterback making all the touch downs!" In both cases, are they taking about a specific day or a group of days in general? I again point out the emphasis on the day being 24 hours by referencing the "morning and evening".

I meant condescension not condensation above.

Kurieuo, I don't think it is a big deal either way - 4th day or first day. I think there needs to be a little more charity in these discussions on OEC and YEC. Good arguments can be put up for both sides. I think we need to work together examining both science and scripture. We each need to advance our scientific theories using science and let the chips fall where they fall. Also, the Intelligent design advocated by Dempski should be advanced as a tool challenging naturalism and evolution. If we work together, showing respect for each theory, I think God will bless us more.

swordfish7 wrote:Kurieuo, I don't think it is a big deal either way - 4th day or first day. I think there needs to be a little more charity in these discussions on OEC and YEC. Good arguments can be put up for both sides. I think we need to work together examining both science and scripture. We each need to advance our scientific theories using science and let the chips fall where they fall. Also, the Intelligent design advocated by Dempski should be advanced as a tool challenging naturalism and evolution. If we work together, showing respect for each theory, I think God will bless us more.

I have said before that I think all creation theories have truths in them that are often overlooked. And it is like we are on different teams when it comes to creationism,too much dogmatism to actually sit down and iron out our differences,separate the good from the bad and put together the ultimate truth creation theory that would destroy anything atheists and agnostics throw at it.

But we are just too dogmatic and so we defend our creation interpretation when we feel it is attacked. Meanwhile the theory of evolution has won and many people are convinced it is true and the bible is wrong. We know that YEC cannot defeat evolution,at best it comes down to a draw where it comes down to who we choose to believe,it is the gap theory that can defeat evolution using their own evidence against them to confirm the gap theory instead of evolution.

And Day Agers have the Big Bang Theory covered,if we could work together more? We could defeat this atheistic science attack,but as long as we keep doing the same thing over and over hoping to get a different result? We will continue to lose ground and it is not so much Satan doing it but our dogmatism that divides us to the truth.