Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2007 6:02 pm**

zoegirl wrote:Those that believe light was created in transit must assume that all we are seeing are images by God not the actual light from these stars and supernovas.

I don't quite follow the logic that having light in transit means God did not create the objects which to be the source of the light. Now, I'm not saying he did create light in transit or not, I'm saying if he did, it follows he would also create the objects.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2007 6:11 pm**

yes but we are not seeing the light FROM those objects but images, thus really meaning that we are not seeing those objects.

He said it much more completely than I, read his commentary.

Anyway, I would think that we are trying too hard to fit something to our understanding of scripture that doesn't need to be fitted....

If it walks like a duck....

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2007 6:14 pm**

zoegirl wrote:I know I am biased, but science isn't bad!! God placed Adam and Eve in the garden and established a mandate for them to be stewards. ADam named the animals...do we really think he did think flippantly? or would he have, with God, established an understanding of these animals....To be good stewards we must observe ! Unfortunatley our realtionsip between ourselves and the earth has been corrupted but that doesn't change our mandate!

God isn't disturbed but our questions! As long as we are focused on Him first! It is His creation!

"The heavens declare the glory of God"

I would like to put forth a couple of comments. Where has any one said science is bad? Secondly, I have reservations about this mandate you speak of which implies we should use science to be a good steward of the earth. Clearly our mandate is to bring glory to Christ and to tell others the "good news". Jesus never told us to take stweardship of the earth and in fact cautioned us about being too attached. We are visitors but our homes are elsewhere. (of course this does not mean abuse it, any more than you would abuse a home in which you are a guest.)

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2007 6:19 pm**

zoegirl wrote:yes but we are not seeing the light FROM those objects but images, thus really meaning that we are not seeing those objects.

He said it much more completely than I, read his commentary.

Yea, I read it. I don't care for the argument. What is the point of refuting YEC viewpoints anyway?

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2007 6:35 pm**

Ah, but Jesus never revoked the command, simply established our transient relationship. Jesus also cautioned us to not favor our realtionsips on earth more than our heavenly one, doesn't mean that we are to give up on our families or friends.

A king that makes someone his steward until he returns doesn't expect that steward to say, "well, gee, really, I not going to be here forever, so I won't fulfill my obligations"

And yes, I know that no one has said outright that science is bad, but really, that has been the veyr obvious meaning of some of the posts. Enigma is basically defending himself for his being brought to CHrist through understanding the world and God's place in it.

And absolutely we are to bring Glory to God and speak the news about Christ. Never said we shouldn;t, believe it wholeheartedly (what is the chief end of Man? To glorify God). But why in the world would these (being good stewards and glorifying him and speaking the good news) by mutually exclusive?

Aren't we speaking the good news with our living for Christ? By being good with our money? our reputation? our family lives? The welfare of our animals ("the righteous man takes care of his livestock"), being responsible for our land?

"Always preach the gospel, and when necessary, use words" I believe it was St. Francis that said this...

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2007 6:37 pm**

Forum Monk wrote:
zoegirl wrote:yes but we are not seeing the light FROM those objects but images, thus really meaning that we are not seeing those objects.

He said it much more completely than I, read his commentary.
Yea, I read it. I don't care for the argument. What is the point of refuting YEC viewpoints anyway?

Oh, well, the original question from enigma was about OEC vs YEC, I was simply providing some resources for him. I don't really need to either, but just wanted to respond to his worries.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2007 6:47 pm**

Forum Monk wrote:
Enigma7457 wrote:I don't see it this way. I think we all have our different individual beliefs (not going to say who is right). That seems to me to be beneficial. If there were only one or two denominations, who's to say we would be able to save more people? I think we all have different beliefs and styles and standings, etc. because different people will require a different approach to be saved.
I was hoping people on this board would see my statement in the larger context. I am not referring to this board in particular but what I see taking place across the internet. These same differing points of view have evolved into website against website. Groups of people dedicated to undoing the beliefs system of others and all sides claiming to be Christian. In a way it is like militant denominationism. I don't mean to narrow my statement to a particular board. Really I am willing to say, "I believe such and such but not everyone believes the same as I about this." We can disagree on these nonessential beliefs as long as we remain united in the Christian essentials of Christ first and love for one another.

Agree with you here, I do not make OEC a requirement for Chrisianity. Pity, though, that others do make YEC a necessary belief.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 4:08 am**

Arch is OEC, a gap theory supporter

please quote me where i make such statements. i never said any such thing. stop misrepresenting what i say.

Many of us are progessive creationists

please quote scriptures to back this position up, Job 38 says differently, so does romans 11:36, col. 1:16.

Currently scientific evidence points to an old universe

scientific evidence means nothing here, there are too many variables at work and science can't account for them all and this is a theological issue not a scientific one.

most of the division comes from those that fear and misunderstand both science and the bible, feeling that we compromise

no the division comes in from those who do not follow the word of God and look to science first. science is your love, not God that is why you are being call repentance.

HE doesn't call God a liar

if he claims that God used any other method than 6 days to create the specifics, he is calling God a liar.

He is saying that those who claim that we are simply seeing images established by God are saying we aren't seeing the real thing

he is saying things he cannot prove both scientifically and scripturally adn so are you if you continue inyour present path.

To be good stewards we must observe

that is not what a good steward does--STAY OUT OF THEOLOGY--you do not know anything about it.

Unfortunatley our realtionsip between ourselves and the earth

what relationship?????? it is between us and Jesus Christ not us and the earth

I don't quite follow the logic that having light in transit means God did not create the objects which to be the source of the light.

how can you understand it, the guy is wrong.

I would think that we are trying too hard to fit something to our understanding of scripture that doesn't need to be fitted....

yes you are, you are trying to fit the Bible to science when that is wrong.

Secondly, I have reservations about this mandate you speak of which implies we should use science to be a good steward of the earth.

God didn't tell us to use science especially if it is following secular thinking. God never said in the Bible that science was the tool nor the field we are to use. science has been elevated to a positioon that God did not intend, he allowed it to see if His followers would follow Him or secular thinking but he never positioned science to be the final authority.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 5:15 am**

i ama little put off today due to an accident this morning so to get backontrack here is what alfred edersheim has to say on the topic. it is quite long but it is germane. taken from His Bible History book:

It is scarcely possible to imagine a greater contrast than between the
heathen accounts of the origin of all things and the scriptural narrative. The
former are so full of the grossly absurd that no one could regard them as
other than fables; while the latter is so simple, and yet so full of majesty,
as almost to force us to “worship and bow down,” and to “kneel before
the Lord our Maker.” And as this was indeed the object in view, and not
scientific instruction, far less the gratification of our curiosity, we must
expect to find in the first chapter of Genesis simply the grand outlines of
what took place, and not any details connected with creation. On these
points there is ample room for such information as science may be able to
supply, when once it shall have carefully selected and sifted all that can be
learned from the study of earth and of nature. That time, however, has not
20
yet arrived; and we ought, therefore, to be on our guard against the rash
and unwarranted statements which have sometimes been brought forward
on these subjects. Scripture places before us the successive creation of all
things, so to speak, in an ascending scale, till at last we come to that of
man, the chief of God's works, and whom his Maker destined to be lord of
all. (<190803>Psalm 8:3-8) Some have imagined that the six days of creation
represent so many periods, rather than literal days, chiefly on the ground
of the supposed high antiquity of our globe, and the various great epochs
or periods, each terminating in a grand revolution, through which our earth
seems to have passed, before coming to its present state, when it became a
fit habitation for man. There is, however, no need to resort to any such
theory. The first verse in the book of Genesis simply states the general
fact, that “In the beginning” — whenever that may have been — “God
created the heaven and the earth.” Then, in the second verse, we find earth
described as it was at the close of the last great revolution, preceding the
present state of things: “And the earth was without form and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep.” An almost indefinite space of
time, and many changes, may therefore have intervened between the
creation of heaven and earth, as mentioned in ver. 1, and the chaotic state
of our earth, as described in ver. 2. As for the exact date of the first
creation, it may be safely affirmed that we have not yet the knowledge
sufficient to arrive at any really trustworthy conclusion.
It is of far greater importance for us, however, to know that God “created
all things by Jesus Christ;” (<490309>Ephesians 3:9) and further, that “all things
were created by Him, and for Him,” (<510116>Colossians 1:16) and that “of Him,
and through Him, and to Him are all things.” (<451136>Romans 11:36. See also
<460806>1 Corinthians 8:6; <580102>Hebrews 1:2; <430103>John 1:3) This gives not only
unity to all creation, but places it in living connection with our Lord Jesus
Christ. At the same time we should also always bear in mind, that it is
“through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of
God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear.” (<581103>Hebrews 11:3)
Everything as it proceeded from the hand of God was “very good,”fb1 that
is, perfect to answer the purpose for which it had been destined. “And on
the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested
on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.

read it carefully...

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 11:26 am**

archaeology wrote: that it is possible for a gap or a creation with age. neither are deceptive or take away from the 6 day creation act. 5.

Thought there was somewhere else where you said you liked an old earth with gap theory.

Obviously, if you concede to an old earth, it would be with GAP theory. But enlighten us, what do you think? Old earth? young earth?

Since when do you know anything of my credentials of theology? Because a great many people believe that the scriptural meanings are different than yours, you have made it your mission to "educate" us. You will be sadly frustrated here...

I so want to say "STAY OUT OF SCIENCE" but we really have gone through this before. You thinkn everybody that disagrees with your interpretation of Hebrew words is wrong...so be it.

FOrum Monk, just to clarify, I have never felt that you feel science is bad. Sorry to have generalized

Enigma or Forum MOnk, let me know you thoughts

Regards

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 2:31 pm**

Thought there was somewhere else where you said you liked an old earth with gap theory.

tht quote does not show support for the gap theory, it just says it is a possibility. i am not an OECer nor a progressive creationist both positions are worng.

Since when do you know anything of my credentials of theology

it is very clear you do not know the subject.

I so want to say "STAY OUT OF SCIENCE

when christians put science back into its rightful place then i probably will but until then, i will speak against anyone who says science trumps God or the Bible.

i am still waiting for scriptural proof that the Bible supports progessive creationism.

You thinkn everybody that disagrees with your interpretation of Hebrew words is wrong..

i don't believe i ever claimed i made any translations of hebrew words. i believe i defended those scholars who did do the work and are far more qualified to translate than you or deem. stop being a misrepresenter.

science has limited capibilities, once you realize that then maybe you will be ready to move in the right direction.

science doesn't interpret the Bible or overrule it or it wouldn't be God's word.

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 3:35 pm**

Arch,

I refuse to waste words with you. You can wait til the proverbial cows come home.

Previous attempts to discuss things and defend thoughts and "help you understand" my and the website's position were simply be met with "You're wrong", or "you're not biblical"....

You really don't wish to understand, you simply wish to criticize....I have provided links to the page that provides scriptural references and you say that they are wrong.

Have fun with that....
Again, Enigma and Forum Monk, gladly continue discussing with you

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 6:32 pm**

Obviously, Enigma can speak for himself, but I never interpreted what he wrote when he opened this thread as worry, fear, or repentence in his belief in science. I merely thought that he was saying, perhaps he let science take more credit that it was due.

Further, I think Arch is correct. I don't feel Arch is saying science is bad or evil, but when science is elevated above God in any way, that is wrong. Also, his point is well taken that much of science is a guessing game is dead on. Practically every scientific position out there has its refutiation and at times I find myself scratching my head wondering, "what is truth?" I think at that point Arch would be saying if you are trying to find truth in science is it any wonder you're confused?

Old earth, young earth? For me, the gap theory has merit. "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth." Did God create them formless and void? Did he make them uninhabitable? Why? Since God is able to speak them into existence with the declaration "Let there be..." why would He declare, "Let there be a formless and void mass", suspended in darkness and requiring further refinement? It seems non-sensical to me.

I once tried to support the idea that verse two may have said, "the earth BECAME formless and void." But this was a twist of the original interpretation and was a convenience to support my preconceived notion. I believed, for example, that at some time in the past there was a revolt in heaven, and Lucifer lost his place and fell and perhaps the final fate of the earth in verse one was the destructive work of Satan prior to verse two. But this position is an inference not directly stated by scripture.

Really, the only truly safe position is the simple interpretation of the scripture as written. The six day creation, no twisting words, no inference, no special conditions. God in His most glorious display of miracle working power.

Then later, after the awe fades away and the mind begins to drift, one starts to think, what about age as deception? what about the distant stars? what about geology? Can it be explained and does it fit the Biblical account? One begins walking down other paths of inquiry...

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 9:08 pm**

archaeologist wrote:
I think at that point Arch would be saying if you are trying to find truth in science is it any wonder you're confused?

Just for clarification...is that you being specific to me, or a general you?

Because I am not confused....God spoke, intended, imposed HIs will, created, did the job. But He did not reveal everything about HOW HE created. (Not saying He simply started everything and let things simply evolved)

I have never claimed that science is the final authority, but for those of us who look at them multiple meanings of Hebrew, we view long days and periods of time as being the literal view of scripture. Science, then simply, agrees with this.

Science will never provide the ultimate truth simply because it is limited to natural events and by our finite understanding. But it is not vain nor ignoble nor sinful, nor is any critical thinking. It is our sin that makes is so, not the process.

God did not reveal everything to us, and unfortunatley, thanks to our sin, we have broken what could have been such wonderful revelations between mankind and God. He did not reveal to us the presence of bacteria or plankton, or quarks or subatomic particles or cells, or organelles, or DNA, or even what happened to these structures after the fall, other than our relationship as rulers was corrupted and the creation groans under the curse. But we don't know what happened to DNA, or even whether something happened to elemental laws.

Ultimatley those that deny God are doing so because of their heart and their rebellion against God. They use science, just s they use philosophy and psychology to reject God.

God can call to ANYBODY....those that are seeking the truth will find it, even the scientist, or philosopher, or psychologist, or atheist....

Posted: **Sat May 12, 2007 9:28 pm**

zoegirl wrote:
archaeologist wrote:
I think at that point Arch would be saying if you are trying to find truth in science is it any wonder you're confused?
Just for clarification...is that you being specific to me, or a general you?

I wrote that, not Archaeologist.

And since I was referring to me scratching my head and wondering what is truth, why would I suddenly have Arch making a statement to z/g?
**geesh**
I thought I wrote that all pretty clearly.

Evidence for God from Science

OEC v. YEC (Not a competition)