Evidence for God from Science

It's fine to cut and paste materials from other websites as long as it's in keeping with their policies and copyright law. You do need however to provide a link and/or a citation, please.

Yes, all my apoligies. Definantly, i'll keep that for further references.
If one is interested in reading the whole article, it can be found by using this link

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/ScientificBible.htm

and the source of that article is: http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm

FearlessLlearsy » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:31 am

neo-x wrote: science has its blunders, I do not disagree with that.
On the subject of biblical authority, I suppose that my "I think" or for that matter any one whatever he or she may say, could never be above the Bible, anyways. I could always be wrong but God can not.


Neo-x, i would like to very much applaud you for stating that statement. It is wonderful to see a fellow brother in Christ say it.

FearlessLlearsy, all praise be to God, brother. I think we all share Christ's love to be called Christians

jlay » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:54 pm

Also when moses wrote the genesis account or Luke wrote the gospel, they thought that the earth was probably flat. Those people wrote what they wrote in the context of the then known principles of nature and universe.

You don't know this. This is just a form of chronological snobbery. In fact it sounds like something an atheists would say to tear down scritpure. Many ancient cultures viewed the earth as a sphere. But it doesn't matter what shape they thought the earth was. We are told that the scritpures are given by inspiration of God. That Moses was carried along by the Holy Spirit. This isn't mixing science and religion.

Question: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ scientifically plausible?

I used to be an atheist Jilay, and for that matter a very hard headed one too but that doesn't change the fact that each civilization thought of earth as what seemed closest to their explanation of religion and God.
And the thing is, whether if they used to think like that or not - you don't know that either. As I said above, they wrote what they could understand.

I don't want to defend something I never claimed. Please read my whole post, I said and still hold, I could always be wrong. But that doesn't make your interpretation any better than mine. All I said that Adam could be called the first human in biblical history, you have no way to prove otherwise, either.

you quoted 1 cor 15:45: So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

would I be correct to suppose from this that Jesus was the last Adam, the last man, I know how it sounds and we both know it is not like that but again ,picking only words that make your theory sound perfect is not something I would do. At best this verse explain things in relevance to Jesus being the last man, not Adam as the first. And to the maximum, all I am saying is that humans could have existed before Adam. There are fossils that predate Adam, whatever they did or didn't, does not in any way affect the bible.

And now you may say, "You don't know that" but Jilay, you don't either. My purpose of saying that moses thought the Earth was flat was to give an example of how people wrote in context of their best of knowledge. If the Holy spirit was carrying Moses when he wrote "the sun stopped" in between the battle, why didn't H.S correct Moses?

All scripture are inspired by God, I do not oppose that.

Of course by common relativity this is not an issue at all since to the viewer the sun and moon, stopped, in that it does make sense as word play but nothing wrong with it. But if you are going to count it as proof, a verse to support the claim that the sun stopped, then you would be in error.

Hope you see my point brother. I hold again, Bible is not a scientific book, stop making it sound like one. It is not the explaining authority on how black holes are formed and how the earth revolves around the Sun. I say again and again, i do no believe that scriptures are in error, they are God's word, just that they do not explain everything scientifically, they are not supposed to. And that does not hamper my faith at all, in a God who could do it all.

Question: Is the resurrection of Jesus Christ scientifically plausible?

[/quote]
No, and there is no reason for me to accept it scientifically, it is God's power. I do not negate it. I try to understand things from science where the Bible is not specific or vague.

Anyways, counter evidence still exists whether someone likes it or not. I do not see why this makes me someone who is interpreting the Bible in a wrong way. You could be equally wrong, who knows. All depends on the fact you take it literal, I don't. I have good reason to think like that. observed fact like fossils - do not say the bible is wrong, they say it doesn't tell you everything, you just can't deny bones in front of you, can you?

they do not explain everything scientifically

I agree, but nonetheless, the Bible shares scientific truth. Dont it?

you just can't deny bones in front of you, can you?

In all honesty, bones are not what bothers me. How they record or "date" those bones is what bothers me. Are not those bones usually dated with Carbon Dating?

If not, how do they accuratly date a bone?

There are several counter-examples showing that carbon dating showed a bone to be millions of years old, while in fact, using other "dating"techniques, it ends up being 10-20000 yrs old. Ya get my point?

Well, Paul(your screename) may i, with all respect ask you how you came with that conclusion?

Of course,
Nowhere in the bible do any of the many writers give the impression of giving out "science advice", there is no mention of gravity, atoms, physics, thermodynamics, genetics, anything of the sort.
The bible is a book of many things, history, poetry, divine revelation and more, but it never alludes to being a book about science at all.
So why view it as such?
It may mention water, but does it mention the science behind the water cycles? Nope.
It means air, but does it mention photosynthesis? Nope.
It mentions stars and the heavens, but does it mention their astronomical state? Nope.
Making their writings "scientific" was not the intention of the writers so to take their writing that way is going beyond what their intentions were.

No offense, but none of the verse you quoted show any scientific truth.

paul, dating is not a problem in a broad sense, consider documented evidence, these bones are not like contemporary man, whatever date they have, its before Adam. I agree Bible does share scientific truth, just not in all cases and it should not be expected of it.

neo-x wrote: paul, dating is not a problem in a broad sense, consider documented evidence, these bones are not like contemporary man, whatever date they have, its before Adam.

Neo, im the one who asked the question
Good point you made there. However, is there any legit documentation that shows why those species (sharing physical human likeness) have been extinct?
LOL, Paul, i was not saying the Bible is the source of Science truths
I was stating the fact that the Bible shares scientific truths. Does that mean we expect the Bible to contain all of Science? Indeed, not in a million years.

Take a look at this example: The Bible stated that the stars cannot be counted:

"I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore" (Jeremiah 33:22, NIV).

He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them. (Genesis 15:5, NIV).

This is in my opinion a scientific truth? Wouldnt you agree on that? And even though it may have poetical/metaphorical at worst, that still does not deny the fact that it is a scientific truth? Or am I wrong?

by FearlessLlearsy » Tue Apr 26, 2011 7:55 am

neo-x wrote: paul, dating is not a problem in a broad sense, consider documented evidence, these bones are not like contemporary man, whatever date they have, its before Adam.

Neo, im the one who asked the question
Good point you made there. However, is there any legit documentation that shows why those species (sharing physical human likeness) have been extinct?

My apologies for that, I was in office while reading the thread and I admit I was in a rush...lol.

About legit documentation, I would say no, there is none, no way to know if what is the standard of legit, dating and other things are close but never precise. One thing is clear though, biblical history puts man at max around 5000 b.c or close to that, these fossils are much much older. carbon dating is not pinpoint accurate, but it does give good ranges, a few errant tests do not indicate that carbon dating is not to be trusted, a lot of biblical archeology is carbon dated and found to be in accordance with the bible so I would not throw carbon dating away. it may not be precise but it is close and it gives good ranges.

you may see the following links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_Homo_sapiens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

these species are no longer present, their features are not documented or observed or any living specimen is ever seen as well as the fact that no fossil was found in the 5000 year range, the closest is 12-13000 years old.

How and why they became extinct could not be concluded decisively, extinction is a process that has never been documented on any specimen. may be ice age, or a flood, who knows. all that is known is that they have been extinct with no living specimen surviving.

Neo, I'm not qualified to argue on this topic (and I certainly won't attempt it), but how does the Bible put man at 5,000BC? IIRC, Hugh Ross believes that Adam could have been around 50,000-100,000BC.

Mayten, I must confess, I am not more qualified either but anyways from what I know, Fossils back in tha range of 50000-100000 years do no belong to Homo Sapiens exclusively but also to other classes of Homo species (at least one) which became extinct at around 12000 - 30000 b.c. Civilization by all records anywhere on Earth arose around 10,000 b.c, so did writing and modern arts and culture. Unless Hugh Ross thinks Adam was more close to orangutan and chimpanzee, I do not see how Adam could have been that old. Homo sapiens only gained their current form (which we think is what Adam had) at max around 50,000 b.c but NOT with any contemporary traits, such as language with grammar or syntax or speech which was articulated and was an ancestor of any modern day languages. This is one reason why the timeline puts Adam around 5000 B.C.

Also there is question of Ice ages. From Adam to now, it would imply around three ice ages to be vague. The latest idea is that a glacial period (time period between two ice ages) on average is 40000-100000 years however new critics span the period to 50000 years so either way 1-3 ice ages at least. The Bible doesn't mention anything like it or even close. In fact genesis account doesn't tell of cold climates but temperate and hot regions where domestication was possible.

And even if there is to be only one ice age then that would mean, it happened somewhere between Adam and moses since moses wrote everything in the genesis account, but since he never wrote about the ice age, creates a great problem because if language evolved late and written language (with grammar) very late, it would make the chances of Moses writing down the stories of Noah, Abraham, Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah, Joesph, Jacob, pharaoh, tribes of Israel in perfect detail and after almost 80000 years after they happened very less likely (because Adam's age was close to 1000 years).

The account of Joesph tells us that Egypt was a monarchy, an empire, a powerful too, they had learned to store and make bread and weights and measures, knew about the art of assassination by poisoning and clearly knew written language, this would mean that it happened some where in between 10000 b.c, and then there is no way that Adam and Joseph had such a long time period gap in between, unless someone says that the time Adam spent in the garden of Eden does not count in his age written in the bible, I however think that it is probably with his age. And even if someone objects to it, you still can't make up the family tree of Jesus back to Adam as does the gospel of Luke because in this case, atleast 10 to 14 ancestors following Adam must have had to live each for at least 8000 to 10000 years, which the Bible negates.

Another thing, the characters in the book of genesis must have spoken some language even if you put Adam back 100000 b.c. Now all modern science puts VOCAL language somewhere around 100000 yrs b.c at least - but here is the catch, they also say that this language was not speech and was close to what apes today communicate like, it was primitive and was not in any way close to modern speech, as i wrote above it lacked, grammar and syntax with no modern day recognized format. This would make a problem because God did speak to Noah, to Abraham, Peter says that Noah even preached, Abraham had a conversation with God regarding Sodom and Gomorrah. Also that these books mention archeological spots in very good conditions to what we know today and by what names they are called.

There may be other points too but I hope you get the idea why I think putting Adam that far makes the theory unlikely. Hope it helps

That's all very interesting, thanks for the post!

As I said, I'm not really qualified to say anything at this point. I do think that Hugh makes a good case from what I've seen so far, so this is something I'm going to continue to look into for myself. Decisions, decisions...

No problem Maytan, I will just add that to me Ross' case is good but it simply is too far-fetched. Accepting his theory, scientifically may make some sense of Genesis with respect to fossil record but then it creates a lot of other problems too. namely religion, language, civilization and time period. hope it helps

You say thet there were ealier "humanoids". There is nothing in the bible stating exactly how long ago Adam was, therefor there is nothing biblical to show that those "humanoids" could not have been humans.
What is stated is that those early humans could live to be over 900 years old, which means that they must have been quite different, genetically and physiologically, to us today, who can't even come close to that. Therefore, to call early humans "humanoid" because they were different than us, and to thus say that they were not human, is not biblically sound.
And many of the earliest "humanoids" have since been shown to be not even close to us today, having far smaller brains that we formerly thought, etc., and thus the "human" in their title "humanoid" may not be deserved.
And many of those "humanoids" are nothing more than a few small bone fragments and a lot of pre suppositions and prejudices and wishing to find a "humanoid" that is older and thus more prestigious that the one that other archeologist found over there. The guy with the oldest "humaoid" gets the grant money and applause.
And some of those "humanoids" have even been found to be fakes or have been disproven , which considering that the evidence for some of the others is only a few small bone fragments as well, makes many of the remainder still suspect.

Considering all that, the existence of these early "humanoids" neither proves nor disproves the bible. And for many of these "humanoids" the ideas of modern creationists (of any stripe) that they are NOT human (pre flood type humans who were obviously different than we are) is not biblically sound, and thus this artificial distiction between "humanoids" and "humans" is in many cases not deserved. Thus if you say "humans came around 100,000 years ago, the ones before that are just humanoids", I have to ask, exactly what is your biblical basis to state that? Cite chapter and verse please. I don't know about you, but I see no date next to Adams name. In addition, if they lived to be 900, they would have had a generation that was 200 years (or more) between generations, not the current 20, and thus the times between generations back then would have been much longer, suggesting that it could have been very long ago indeed. And then thare was that whole flood thing, which reset the clock even further back since they had to start all over again with just 8 people, and with still having maybe 200 year generations, so it could have been as long again to build up anough of a population that we can find any fossils of as it did starting with only Adam and Eve.

Reply to neo-x

"

Fossils back in tha range of 50000-100000 years do no belong to Homo Sapiens exclusively but also to other classes of Homo species (at least one) which became extinct at around 12000 - 30000 b.c. "

Well, if they were pre flood humans than they were not homo sapiens as we know tham, so this is irrelevent. Homo sapiens do not live to be over 900 years old, they did, so there must have been considerable genetic and physiological changes from then to our current form now. Of course they became extinct, there was a flood. This would have been followed by considerable genetic drift (stated clearly in the bible where it shows their decreasing lifespans, which were passed on to their children, and hence proves genetic change of a very large order). These much later much shorter lived people would have had generations of only 20 years, as today, and so would have greatly outbred and swamped out any of the old genetically pre flood race. Therefor, your artificial, not biblically supported, and in fact even biblically denied distinction between homo sapiens and non homo sapiens as humans is not warrented.

As for ice ages, the actual timespans are ice ages of about 100,000 to 120,000 years with interglacials of about 10,000 to 12,000 years, at least "recently" (we are due for the end of one right now). Considering that Adam lived to be over 900 years old, as did many others pre flood, and that thus the timespan of a single genration could have been 200, rather than 20, years, your dates must be way off. The timespan from peoples who lived to be 900 to when they only lived to be 70 must be quite long, especially since they had to start over after a flood. Thus, you need to start over, Adam at only 5000 years ago, impossible!

As for the ice, of course the bible doesn't speak of it, they lived in the middle east, that is clearly stated, the ice was far north and south of them, in the temperate zones. The only real diference they would have noticed would be a far lower sea level (hundreds of feet), and a generally drier climate (as clearly stated in genesis account of the pre flood climate). When the ice age ends, as it has been recently discovered can happen with extreme suddeness, the result could be a sudden deluge of rain and a flood over them if they were living in a place which is now several hundred feet below sea level, sound familiar? As for language and writing, well, the most currently likely beleived site where they lived, starting with the genesis description of the area, is off the coast of the middle east and is now several hundred feet below the sea. Any language or writing those people did would be washed away when they were, and the evidence also washed away, possibly not once but as many times as there have been ice ages between then and now. And then there is the whole tower of babel thing, that would have muddied the laguage and civilization waters as well. Threfore, the whole "civilization started so many years ago" argument is moot, that only covers civilization since the end of the last ice age at most, and with the long lifespans of those ancient men, that simply does not leave enough time between Adam and modern, short lived humans. You may also wish to go to the the parent site http://www.godandscience.org/ and read up on it, the idea that the names given in the geneologies are the only ones is not true, the word 'father" can also mean grandfather or great great etc grandfather and thus the timespan covered could be VERY much longer http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ogies.html .

Also, the description of the flood looking exactly like the end of an ice age would put the time of the flood at minimum 123,000 years ago, and the time from Adam to Noah (what with their long generations and lifespans and the fact that the geneologies are only covering the hightlights, not each and every generation) would therefore be very much before that. The idea that it could have been at the start of our currentl interglacial, and thus only maybe 13,000 years ago, doesnt sound very plausable, what with 'modern human' fossils being around at least 100,000 years, and those would be the shorter lived, post flood man, which puts the date of the flood at the start of the interglacial before that, at least 100,000 + 13,000 + at least 10,000 years ago to account for the minimum lenght of that interglacial. And that is just assuming that there have not been multiple ice ages between then and now. Note that the main difference between this original Noahs flood causing interglacial and after it would be that after it there were far more humans spead over a larger area and thus not suseptable to being all flooded out at once, as they were suseptable in Noahs time, being all in one area.

My conclusion from what genesis clearly says is that the date of Adam MUST be considerabley before 120,000 years ago, possibly 10's or oven 100's of thosands of years before that, and also, that at least some of those "hominids" were the clearly genesis described very different from us genetically and physiologically pre flood man.