Evidence for God from Science

jerickson314 wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Ok I can understand that, but I do not see it as inconsistent for God to say that he created stars to give light, and he caused them to be created giving light.

Well, there are billions of years between when stars give light and when we can see the light on Earth, at least at current distances.

Jbuza wrote:Further the idea that God streatched out the heavens seems to indicate that he stretched out the heavens, so It could have been far lesser distances at creation.

Either such an expansion would occur during creation but not now, in which case the stars would now be out of range and we couldn't see them, or such an expansion would occur over time, in which case we would see a lot more red shift than we do now.

The fact is, the distances of stars have been expanding since creation, as observed red shift has demonstrated. However, extrapolations date the beginning of the expansion, when the stars were close together, to being billions of years in the past.

Yeah I have seen those interpretations. I'm not too sure what to make of the mechanisms of creation, and don't really think the God is bound by the current laws of physics as they operate now. I think he could have accomplished it all as he said he did with no problems at all.

There is a great deal unknown about this entire field of study.

Jerickson314 stated:

The fact is, the distances of stars have been expanding since creation, as observed red shift has demonstrated. However, extrapolations date the beginning of the expansion, when the stars were close together, to being billions of years in the past.

This is where some questions arise such as "since creation." Do you mean by this the Big Bang or do you mean from the seventh day on?

Uniformitarian "extrapolation" begs the question. It assumes to be fact what has never been proven to be fact.

JBuza is correct. What laws and forces God used to create the heavens and the earth are not available for our consideration today, c.f. Hebrews 11:3.

Consider this also, before god divided the waters, at what point did he create time?

Is the speed of light constant throughout spacetime? There are as Dr. Creation suggests, too many unknowns to positively prove or disprove an old age theory based on starlight alone with our current knowledge.

But everything that is provable i.e. radiometric dating and archeology suggests a much younger age. When God said "search and ye shall find" " knock, and it shall be opened" He meant it. God does not want us to be ignorant of Him.

knowledge shall be increased

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

we are without excuse

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even, his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

We think we know.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher, than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

It's interesting to note God created light before He Created the sun moon and stars. As a matter of fact He Created grass herbs and the fruit trees, "yielding fruit" nonetheless, before Creating what we know as the 'giver of life' the sun.

"the morning and evening" seem to suggest time, although I hate putting Gods power and thoughts in a box as our views of "the things of God" are, well...a little skewed shall we say.

It is likely (possible) He created 'time' as we know it on the fourth day, along with the Sun, Moon, and Stars.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide, the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide, the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

How then, knowing that God Created fruit trees under the 'heavens' did this supposed 'big bang' not destroy what He was working on?

He tells us in the Word that He 'streched out' the heavens. If we seek the answers to these things using the Word as a template we will find them. If we seek answers to these things without the Word we will still find them, only it would take much longer, as we continually trip over our own arrogance.


Isa 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogance of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

God Bless.

I've read a few times that the speed of light is slowing down in space.

It's hard for me to say, Jay. Iv'e heard that gravity can warp time, speed it up and slow it down i.e. 'black holes'. I imagine there are many, many things we won't know for sure until we see the Lord face to face.

It is certainly interesting though.

Very interesting. I also saw just yesterday that scientest think start dust (dust) may be making the sun appear older then it actually is.

Yes, they can use the spectrum of light to judge the chemical composition of stars and spectral analisis to gauge interstellar movement. I imagine that thier estimates due to the muddied waters (dust) would present a problem with thier calculations.

If you didn't already know, here is a link that explains some methods employed to get these results. Very interesting stuff.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Yes, they can use the spectrum of light to judge the chemical composition of stars and spectral analisis to gauge interstellar movement. I imagine that thier estimates due to the muddied waters (dust) would present a problem with thier calculations.

If you didn't already know, here is a link that explains some methods employed to get these results. Very interesting stuff.

Red shift is determined through spectral pattern analysis, dust is unlikely to effect it.

Here is an analogy.

Lets say the spectrum created by hydrogen is represented by a low note and three high notes.

Lets put the source of this noise on a vehecle, say a fire engine.

We then measure the wavelenths emanating from the fire engine.
Due to the velocity of the fire engine the waves are distorted. However an analysis of the waves allow us to determine that the source was hydrogen.

We can do this because we can measure the wavelengths and see their relationship to each other. Hydrogen always has these four waves in a specific relationship. Then taking this data we can determine the speed of the fire engine.

This is how radar works.

A laser gun works the same way with electromagnetic waves. Thus it is similar to how red shifts are detected.

Any "noise" from dust can be eliminated with a simple computation.

Any "noise" from dust can be eliminated with a simple computation.

The hard part would be to figure out the compensational calculation in reference to the amount of dust in the way, I could see that being easy enough for the sun, but what about in other systems?

How much debris is there in space when looking over such distances I wonder? What would an accurate frame of reference be for this calculation in the first place?

Is there a lot of ice or any other crystalline structures in space that might refract light or skew results? I have no idea, these are ramblings from someone who is uneducated in these things.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Any "noise" from dust can be eliminated with a simple computation.

The hard part would be to figure out the compensational calculation in reference to the amount of dust in the way, I could see that being easy enough for the sun, but what about in other systems?

How much debris is there in space when looking over such distances I wonder? What would an accurate frame of reference be for this calculation in the first place?

Is there a lot of ice or any other crystalline structures in space that might refract light or skew results? I have no idea, these are ramblings from someone who is uneducated in these things.

The spectrum of the star itself is of much higher intensity than any measureable spectrums of reflecting particles. It's sort of like the blur on photoshop, the smaller details are removed from the larger picture giving you the original spectrum of the star.