Evidence for God from Science

tiamo41 wrote:Keeping an open mind. i found this very interesting, maybe you will to. I also purchased the DVD on "Has Science Discovered God" .....http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

Tiamo

Thanks for the link.
From that link, I see this..
"The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-?-vis the Bible are confined to 31 sentences! "

Firstly, it is no headache any more at all to me. If the past was different,, as suggested by the OP, then present science needs not align at all.
Next, it is not just the first few sentences. A day is still a day in chapter 3. The sabbath day was still a day later on, that was modeled on the creation week. The headache is for those that try to make God's word fit the little box of man's present understanding.

Then, of course, eventually the core reason is mentioned, that they feel requires an old age interpreting of the bible. The whole compromise theory thing is the putting first man's word over God's. That is what it is all about.

"A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. (If you visit me in Jerusalem, I'll be happy to show you the dinosaur fossil - the vertebra of a plesiosaurus.) So my 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?"

Now, in that creation week, when a planet's waters, and land were separated, with no great heat to kill life that was created here a few days later, do you think there was radioactive decay?? If so, why?? Can you show evidence?? No. You can't See, if the principle components of a rock, including isotopes, were there already, and doing something in some other process than decay, they were not in the present parent daughter relationship. That means that those ratios cannot be used for dating the far past, period.

You may raise the point, that dino bones were not in creation week, at least the early part of it. Fine. But, then, the problem for old agers, is to prove that the universe was not also different much later than creation week! I think it was different right till after the flood.

dad wrote:Yec is every bit as much science as old ageism. Not that that is all that much anyhow.

No it isn't... Yec is made up of a bunch of renegade or cult "so called" scientists that are trying promote this warped idea that the earth and the universe we know today is only a few thousand years old. This is a gross misinterpretation of the facts. And these young earth creationists are a very very small group of scientists, even too small to be taken seriously.

dad wrote:You see, the bible deals with the spiritual as well as the physical.

Well the spiritual and physical can't contradict each other. There is NO problem with the science we know today. And if you took the time to study it you would actually find that it really supports what the Bible has been saying all along. And that is that God created everything...

dad wrote:The temporary state universe knowledge we call science will pass away as will the heavens and earth we know, as is. For you to insinuate that God would frown on people that believe the bible for what is says, by and large, rather than leaning to the cunning fables of man, misapplied to the past, they know squat about, is impish.

I would be extremely careful what you are promoting. This silly literal 7 day interpretation of creation is causing many people who believe in the Bible to lose faith (when faced with the scientific facts) and prevents others (non-believers) from believing in the Bible and in God as well. Someone is going to have to answer to this...

Language has little to do with it. It is only one part of the equation. The spiritual parts of the equation are paramount in importance. Study that.

Are you serious? Not only do you have to understand the language of other cultures, you also have to understand their customs, mannerism, figures of speech, and expressions. It is a very complicated study. You just can't read a few words and then say "thus says the Lord" and then force it to fit into faith. As for the spiritual, my God says that this literal interpretation is wrong and that it is stifling his children from reaching him.

The cross checks I meant are things like morning, and evening, and plants made days before the sun, and the usual context of day, as in Gen 3:8, that rule out your claims. Blow them away.

No... Your logic and reasonings stems from centuries old interpretations of the Bible, starting with the KJV and other books when the translators had very weak scientific foundations. The problem is, this defect was fused into the teachings which now has shipwrecked hundreds of thousands of people's faith.

Scripture supports a six day creation best. It can be contorted to so called support the compromise theories as well, but as mentioned, not very well.

No it doesn't... Those simple word studies we showed you exposed those defects. The contortion came from those early English translators who then fused their present day science with the Bible. The crazy thing about it is, some of these present day evangelicals went along with it and thus corrupted it's meaning and corrupted others faith also.

That doesn't clear anything up the way you would like it to. It points out the obvious, the word could be used in other ways. So??? The thing that is important here, is how WAS it used in early Genesis?

What do you mean, so? You just can't cherry pick words from Genesis and then say here is what it means. We have to be careful with the word of God. We have to take all things into account... Things like where has this word been previously used, to whom it is written for, what is the context it was written, etc..

Science you say speaks for itself. It speaks for the present. It speaks for the physical only. Shouldn't you worry about what speaks for God, and the spiritual as well? Or do you care??

Do you know what speaks for God? How do you know?? Do you really care about all these people that look at the real scientific evidence and then compare them to what these "cult" so called yec scientists are saying? Again, someone is going to be held accountable for this...

Gman wrote:

dad wrote:Yec is every bit as much science as old ageism. Not that that is all that much anyhow.

No it isn't... Yec is made up of a bunch of renegade or cult "so called" scientists that are trying promote this warped idea that the earth and the universe we know today is only a few thousand years old. This is a gross misinterpretation of the facts. And these young earth creationists are a very very small group of scientists, even too small to be taken seriously.

No it isn't. Yec is a term for young earth creation. It is a gross misrepresentation of facts to say the earth is old. Science can't go there at all. So scientists have nothing to do with it. They are stuck in the fishbowl. They only dream of the past, and have no clue if it was different or the same. They have simply assumed. Period.

Well the spiritual and physical can't contradict each other. There is NO problem with the science we know today. And if you took the time to study it you would actually find that it really supports what the Bible has been saying all along. And that is that God created everything...

No problem with it, that is right, long as it stays in the fishbowl of the present temporary state universe. Thus far, and no further. You shall not pass. I have no problem at all with science, just the silly so called science that is a myth, and tells tales of some same state past that never was.

I would be extremely careful what you are promoting. This silly literal 7 day interpretation of creation is causing many people who believe in the Bible to lose faith (when faced with the scientific facts) and prevents others (non-believers) from believing in the Bible and in God as well. Someone is going to have to answer to this...

They need lose no faith at all, no science facts can challenge it. The fact is, they have nothing to say about creation week, or the future. They can only tell us how it now works, and that is all well and good...now.

Are you serious? Not only do you have to understand the language of other cultures, you also have to understand their customs, mannerism, figures of speech, and expressions. It is a very complicated study.

Nonsense. A child could understand it, that is the way God had it written. It was well understood for generations. It is the people that felt they needed to apologize for God, and make His word fit man's wisdom, that thought they needed to bend it out of shape.

You just can't read a few words and then say "thus says the Lord" and then force it to fit into faith. As for the spiritual, my God says that this literal interpretation is wrong and that it is stifling his children from reaching him.

Your God ought to read the bible. You would both learn something. Start with an open mind, not an all consuming need to compromise with man's silly little wisdom.

No... Your logic and reasonings stems from centuries old interpretations of the Bible, starting with the KJV and other books when the translators had very weak scientific foundations. The problem is, this defect was fused into the teachings which now has shipwrecked hundreds of thousands of people's faith.

Thank you for demonstrating what I just said. That is your concern, man, and his wisdom. Try God, and His wisdom. It is higher. Much higher.

No it doesn't... Those simple word studies we showed you exposed those defects.

Not in the least way, is that remotely close to a distant relation to the truth.

The contortion came from those early English translators who then fused their present day science with the Bible. The crazy thing about it is, some of these present day evangelicals went along with it and thus corrupted it's meaning and corrupted others faith also.

Their understanding was right. They were moved by God, not science. Inspiration, not compromise.

What do you mean, so? You just can't cherry pick words from Genesis and then say here is what it means. We have to be careful with the word of God. We have to take all things into account... Things like where has this word been previously used, to whom it is written for, what is the context it was written, etc..

I didn't do anything like that. I took the Hebrew meaning, and it was day. The context was, by the mornings and evenings, and other things, a day, as we think of a day. As Jesus thought of a day. As God thought of a day, walking in the cool of the day in the garden. Give it up.

Do you know what speaks for God?

The bible.

How do you know??

He told us, and Jesus told us, and it works.

Do you really care about all these people that look at the real scientific evidence and then compare them to what these "cult" so called yec scientists are saying? Again, someone is going to be held accountable for this...

Yes, the ones that bought into man's wisdom. They are without excuse. As I pointed out, science can't cover the bible past or future. Really. Get it?

ON PBS TONIGHT 13th a documentary on the theory of ID on Trial. "Judgement DAY" STARTS at 8pm until 10 pm. for those interested. Tiamo

Okay I posted this on another thread, dad, but mayb you haven't read it:

Many people do not believe that evolution and Creation through God can be combined. And even more people do not think that evolution can be compatible with a Christian theory (not believed by all Christians and necessarily in the Bible) that the world is only 8,000 years old. But I believe that all three can be matched perfectly.
First of all, we must think, why did God create Earth and the universe? Obviously, it was for mankind, so mankind is what He had in mind while he created the universe. He is omniscient, so he knew everything that would transpire and what He must do to create today's Earth. If evolution is correct, then for our Earth to reach the current level it is in (the most favorable for humans, and the one in which humans live), the earth would have to be millions of years old. But God was creating the Earth with man in mind. My thought on this is that God then created the Earth “in-motion.”
What does this mean? This means that God did not a brand-new Earth that was just starting, but that He created an Earth that was in the middle of its existence. He created Earth and the universe as if they had existed their respective millions and billions of years. So while He was creating them they had just been born, they were millions of years old. For some people, this is a very hard concept to grasp. I've explained it to a few people, and some catch on to it right away and others struggle to comprehend what it says. I believe that reading it instead of hearing it would be even harder, so I'm going to try and explain it more.
It makes sense that God would create the Earth in motion, for He did the same with man. He did not create Adam and Eve as two babies. This would not have worked out for they could not have cared for themselves and would have died. So God instead created two adults, so even though they had just been born, it was as if they had existed for about 25 years.
God did the very same thing with Earth. For Earth to have all of the conditions it has today, and to continue forward with the same principles, and I mean exactly the same, it would have to have existed for millions of years. Just like Adam and Even would have to have existed for about 25 years to become adults. But just like His instant creation of them, God created an Earth that was millions of years old at the time He created it. This provided us with all the evolved animals and plants that help mankind. And it even provides us with things we sometimes wouldn't think of as gifts from God. Fossils and plant matter being in the soil for millions of years provided fossil fuels for us, and there are countless other examples.
This theory seems to make complete sense. The universe and Earth are much too complicated, amazing, and perfect to have happened by chance, but evolution appears to have very solid scientific foundations. But as you can see, a perfect clear-cut line can be drawn to connect Creationism and evolution.

This doesn't seem to be some crazy concoction to me. God created Earth with the physics our science has discovered, but He created it so it would be ready for man instantly. Therefore, He created it as if it had already progressed through billions of years and showed evidence of this. Another thing is that a lot of Old Testament verses talk about how the Universe declares the glory of God. Well, many of these stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, so they would have to be millions of years old for the light to travel to us. Therefore, it would make sense that if God created hte Earth in seven days and maybe only 10 thousand years ago or such, that He would create it in motion, as if the light had already been traveling towards Earth for millions of years. That way the first people he Created could see the glorious stars He created to display His glory. Hopefully you may find this helpful.

gogobuffalo wrote:Okay I posted this on another thread, dad, but mayb you haven't read it:

Many people do not believe that evolution and Creation through God can be combined. And even more people do not think that evolution can be compatible with a Christian theory (not believed by all Christians and necessarily in the Bible) that the world is only 8,000 years old. But I believe that all three can be matched perfectly.
First of all, we must think, why did God create Earth and the universe? Obviously, it was for mankind, so mankind is what He had in mind while he created the universe. He is omniscient, so he knew everything that would transpire and what He must do to create today's Earth. If evolution is correct, then for our Earth to reach the current level it is in (the most favorable for humans, and the one in which humans live), the earth would have to be millions of years old. But God was creating the Earth with man in mind. My thought on this is that God then created the Earth “in-motion.”
What does this mean? This means that God did not a brand-new Earth that was just starting, but that He created an Earth that was in the middle of its existence. He created Earth and the universe as if they had existed their respective millions and billions of years. So while He was creating them they had just been born, they were millions of years old. For some people, this is a very hard concept to grasp. I've explained it to a few people, and some catch on to it right away and others struggle to comprehend what it says. I believe that reading it instead of hearing it would be even harder, so I'm going to try and explain it more.
It makes sense that God would create the Earth in motion, for He did the same with man. He did not create Adam and Eve as two babies. This would not have worked out for they could not have cared for themselves and would have died. So God instead created two adults, so even though they had just been born, it was as if they had existed for about 25 years.
God did the very same thing with Earth. For Earth to have all of the conditions it has today, and to continue forward with the same principles, and I mean exactly the same, it would have to have existed for millions of years. Just like Adam and Even would have to have existed for about 25 years to become adults. But just like His instant creation of them, God created an Earth that was millions of years old at the time He created it. This provided us with all the evolved animals and plants that help mankind. And it even provides us with things we sometimes wouldn't think of as gifts from God. Fossils and plant matter being in the soil for millions of years provided fossil fuels for us, and there are countless other examples.
This theory seems to make complete sense. The universe and Earth are much too complicated, amazing, and perfect to have happened by chance, but evolution appears to have very solid scientific foundations. But as you can see, a perfect clear-cut line can be drawn to connect Creationism and evolution.

This doesn't seem to be some crazy concoction to me. God created Earth with the physics our science has discovered, but He created it so it would be ready for man instantly. Therefore, He created it as if it had already progressed through billions of years and showed evidence of this. Another thing is that a lot of Old Testament verses talk about how the Universe declares the glory of God. Well, many of these stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, so they would have to be millions of years old for the light to travel to us. Therefore, it would make sense that if God created hte Earth in seven days and maybe only 10 thousand years ago or such, that He would create it in motion, as if the light had already been traveling towards Earth for millions of years. That way the first people he Created could see the glorious stars He created to display His glory. Hopefully you may find this helpful.

That concept has limitations. See, I think they can tell, for example, that the light originated at the star that is far away. So it started there, and was not created mid stream.

No, all that means is that God created that star at the same time as another less old star, but he created it older. Created it at the same time, but older. So therefore it would have wahty ou mentioned, the qualities of light that originated farther back in time, so all that has to do is with how it was all created "in motion" as if it had been going for billions of years. You don't have to believe the theory, but I hope it helps you realize that there are ways to make Genesis 1 work. I mean, it was written billions of years ago and designed so the people back then could understand it. It's not going to explain everything in scientific terms that didn't exist at the time. And Creation is not the point of the Bible, Jesus is.

gogobuffalo wrote:No, all that means is that God created that star at the same time as another less old star, but he created it older.

Looking at the reason some consider the star older, I can see that is not the case. It doesn't matter how long light of our universe now takes to get here. That is in no way any marker of great age at all. Therefore, there is no need to imagine some reason God created things older than others.

Created it at the same time, but older. So therefore it would have wahty ou mentioned, the qualities of light that originated farther back in time, so all that has to do is with how it was all created "in motion" as if it had been going for billions of years. You don't have to believe the theory, but I hope it helps you realize that there are ways to make Genesis 1 work.

I know. It is easy when we realize it is science that can't work in the past, because it was not a present state. Neither can it work in the future. The bible works just fine.

I mean, it was written billions of years ago and designed so the people back then could understand it. It's not going to explain everything in scientific terms that didn't exist at the time. And Creation is not the point of the Bible, Jesus is.

The bible was written thousands of years ago. It deals in times that this temporary universe did, or will not exist, so, naturally, present science was not the primary focus.

dad wrote:Nonsense. A child could understand it, that is the way God had it written. It was well understood for generations. It is the people that felt they needed to apologize for God, and make His word fit man's wisdom, that thought they needed to bend it out of shape.

Sounds like someone knows the Word.

Luk 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

dad wrote:I didn't do anything like that. I took the Hebrew meaning, and it was day. The context was, by the mornings and evenings, and other things, a day, as we think of a day. As Jesus thought of a day. As God thought of a day, walking in the cool of the day in the garden. Give it up.

I just wanted to point out that old earth creationists tend to ignore context and cut and paste scripture to fit within the confines of what they believe to be true. ie 'presuppose'.

But then, you already knew that.

Good read dad!

IRQ Conflict wrote:

dad wrote:I didn't do anything like that. I took the Hebrew meaning, and it was day. The context was, by the mornings and evenings, and other things, a day, as we think of a day. As Jesus thought of a day. As God thought of a day, walking in the cool of the day in the garden. Give it up.

I just wanted to point out that old earth creationists tend to ignore context and cut and paste scripture to fit within the confines of what they believe to be true. ie 'presuppose'.

I could be snide and say something about young-earth creationists but let's stick to the arguments....

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

Read these and simply tell me this....

Are all of these measurements untrustworthy? "The heavens declare the Glory of God" not "The heavens declare the Glory of God....but not really, you can't trust what they say "....

You can say that God created with the appearance of age....

You can say that God created the universe billions of years ago....

But unless you can tell me how EVERY one of these clocks is wrong.....you cannot say that the measurements support an young earth. So tell me how every one of these is incorrect ?

Also a question....what other Hebrew word could be used to indicate a long period of time, a series of days?

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... number.pdf

Good read on the word Yom....

IRQ Conflict wrote:
Sounds like someone knows the Word.

It does help, one must admit.

I just wanted to point out that old earth creationists tend to ignore context and cut and paste scripture to fit within the confines of what they believe to be true. ie 'presuppose'.

But then, you already knew that.

Good read dad!

Thanks. I think the bottom line with the whole concept of reunderstanding the bible to try and conform to what they think science says, is a spirit of compromise. As I have looked into it, I have come to understand that such compromise was unneeded. God was right all along.

zoegirl wrote:I could be snide and say something about young-earth creationists but let's stick to the arguments....

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

Read these and simply tell me this....

Are all of these measurements untrustworthy? "The heavens declare the Glory of God" not "The heavens declare the Glory of God....but not really, you can't trust what they say "....

All so called measurements really measure the here and now, and assume it applies to the there and then. Don't you think they ought to do a little more than assume?? I mean, we could assume the sun will burn out one day, and most people of science do just that. Why? They assume no new universe or heavens are coming as the bible says will come, and these ones pass away. Yet, what proof have they that the future will be this universe state, as they base all calculations on??? Zero. None at all. That is how much the calculations are worth. Nothing!
Now, in the past, we have a similar deal. They assume that this present state existed, and all it's decaying, temporary laws. Can they prove it??? No. Can you prove it? No. Otherwise you could do it right here and now, for all to see.

You can say that God created with the appearance of age....

Can you say that this state is the created state? Can you say that the age science thinks it sees is anything more than present universe based backwards assumptions, and myth?

You can say that God created the universe billions of years ago....

You could say the tooth fairy left you a dollar if you like. Try and evidence it, and that is altogether another matter.

But unless you can tell me how EVERY one of these clocks is wrong.....you cannot say that the measurements support an young earth. So tell me how every one of these is incorrect ?

Easy. Pick any one, and let's put it on the table for a look see.

Also a question....what other Hebrew word could be used to indicate a long period of time, a series of days?

The issue is not how a word also could be used, but how words actually were used. No mental anguish needed.

Ask a child what a morning is sometime, or an evening. Ask them how long a plant can live without the sun, give them two choices.
-millions of years

or

-a few days.

Not rocket science, this.

zoegirl wrote:I could be snide and say something about young-earth creationists but let's stick to the arguments....

I was just being honest.

Read these and simply tell me this....

Are all of these measurements untrustworthy?

Yes.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

See also Genesis 1:1

"The heavens declare the Glory of God" not "The heavens declare the Glory of God....but not really, you can't trust what they say "....

Here is where a good deal of presupposition comes into play on your part. You seem to think mans ideas and what he can measure is infallible? Don't you think it's possible that man could be wrong when he looks at his environment and proclaims the Bible is misleading?

You can say that God created with the appearance of age....

He most certainly did. About 6000 years worth of age.

You can say that God created the universe billions of years ago....

You could say that, but you'd be wrong.

But unless you can tell me how EVERY one of these clocks is wrong.....you cannot say that the measurements support an young earth. So tell me how every one of these is incorrect ?

Ok, then you should be able to tell me how every one of these is right.
Here are a couple of videos that are interesting. Creation Astronomy Scroll down to the bottom. It's 2 parts, the author is Dr. Jason Lisle.

Also a question....what other Hebrew word could be used to indicate a long period of time, a series of days?

It's all in the context of which it was written. It really doesn't get any simpler than that.

Sometimes I wonder if this forum should be renamed from 'God and Science' to 'God or Science.

You can ceratinly say that we can't trust these measurements....but then, that calls into question every sense we have, doesn't it?, since we live in time and measure time as if we trust it.

Every physical law, every force, every equation we use we use it understanding that it is trustworthy. Every sense we have we depend upon. We build bridges, buildings, interact with each other, build safety regulations with the understanidng of time and space. But now you get to say that we trust our ouw bodies and brains that God gave us?!?

You can certainly say that from God's perspective and from outside time, perhaps hisorically we don't understand the operation of time and yes, could this distort our understanding? Sure....but that is NOT to say that our current understanding does not point to an old age.

Either our basic senses are trustworthy and God gifted us with brains and senses that can trust our findings or He didn't.

I said to take ALL of the pieces of evidence, not just one.....you must discredit all of them and find multiple sources, not just one.....


I would say you are the one distorting scripture, here, Irqconflict. You are saying that God deliberately placed a universe in which it's own testimony cannot be trusted. God is, in effect, testing us, to see whether we believe Him or our own senses. Well, scripture in the psalms, Job, Genesis, points to the creation as an accurate testimony to God. I am not trusting the world's idea;s, i am trusting His creation.

By the way, Dad, you never addressed the article or my question. What other Hebrew word can also mean "series of days" to address a long period pf time and has scriptural usage to back it up? TUrns out that, well, Yom does!

YOu are the one not looking at context of scripture, the usage of morning and evening does nOT have to point to 24-hour days, check the articles on the use of morning and evening.