Evidence for God from Science

Rick,

The old as the hills experiment is true; 10 people watch a scene from 10 different angles and distances and you’ll end up with 10 different opinions as what happened in a scene. Same with AIG, I do see that in these shows, however, not all the time, but now and then the caveats I brought out in oversimplified form are tossed about nevertheless.

There is human interpretation error in both YEC and OEC. Both do agree on one thing however – God said let there be light and there was… God created the whole universe out of nothing…

The rest comes by our independent standing at different angles where we all view the same scene and with so many people viewing recorded word, you’ll have more than 10 different interpretations of the same scene. God created amen. The more I ponder him, why God did not blast humanity off into never-ever land in Gen 6 or even later, is amazing.

Look at what we humans do to each other, how we tear each other apart in so many various ways. How could God so love a wretched humanity to come as a man to reunite us back to himself – is beyond what my mortal mind can comprehend fully. What glimpse of this that I do understand, makes me marvel more at what Jesus said in John 3:15-21. – God so loved the world… Whosoever believes in him… amazing!

And we still tear each other apart over things like creationism or predestination, yet, his word is true – God so loved the world that whosever believes in Him (Jesus) will be saved…
-
-
-

Canuckster1127 wrote:For the record, my concerns about Ham do not apply to all YEC proponents. I'm fine with talking through and working through these elements. My concerns about Ham have to do with his attitudes towards those who disagree with him and his willingness to project motives and positions upon his detractors that they do not express on their own.

He's loud and he's vocal and he draws a lot of attention so sadly, he's hard to separate from the YEC position as a whole.

Absolutely, Bart. He is, whether YECs want to admit it or not, the loudest spokesman for YEC.

B. W. wrote:Rick,

The old as the hills experiment is true; 10 people watch a scene from 10 different angles and distances and you’ll end up with 10 different opinions as what happened in a scene. Same with AIG, I do see that in these shows, however, not all the time, but now and then the caveats I brought out in oversimplified form are tossed about nevertheless.

There is human interpretation error in both YEC and OEC. Both do agree on one thing however – God said let there be light and there was… God created the whole universe out of nothing…

The rest comes by our independent standing at different angles where we all view the same scene and with so many people viewing recorded word, you’ll have more than 10 different interpretations of the same scene. God created amen. The more I ponder him, why God did not blast humanity off into never-ever land in Gen 6 or even later, is amazing.

Look at what we humans do to each other, how we tear each other apart in so many various ways. How could God so love a wretched humanity to come as a man to reunite us back to himself – is beyond what my mortal mind can comprehend fully. What glimpse of this that I do understand, makes me marvel more at what Jesus said in John 3:15-21. – God so loved the world… Whosoever believes in him… amazing!

And we still tear each other apart over things like creationism or predestination, yet, his word is true – God so loved the world that whosever believes in Him (Jesus) will be saved…
-
-
-

Bryan, do you have any links? I'd be interested in watching a show or two. Maybe I'll check their site, and see if I can find the shows there.

And we still tear each other apart over things like creationism or predestination, yet, his word is true – God so loved the world that whosever believes in Him (Jesus) will be saved…

All we have to do is believe on Christ. Unless, of course you are one of the unloved ones who has no ability to believe on Christ, because you have been damned to hell, before the creation of the world.

Brian,

I have no problem with criticisms of Ham or AIG. I am not an apologist for them. I would even agree that Ham has said some things that are divisive. However, I would rather deal with specific statements made by Ham, as opposed to presenting your impressions as his official positions. One thing I always consider when listening to him is that he is absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is young. Now, you may think, "Well duhhh." But I honestly had a hard time understanding many OEC positions, until I approached them the same way.

I have seen some vitriol towards Ham that simply is uncalled for. Not saying that your post is the case, but I think it sets the ball on the Tee so to speak.
On the contrary, I think Ham makes some wise observations when it comes to the decay of the culture today.

Jesus did not say, “…whosoever believes in creationism will have eternal life…”

And, I don't think Ham is saying that either. In fact, I've heard, from them, on multiple occassions that the belief in a literal 7 day (24 hour) creation and young earth are not essential to salvation. But, because they believe in a literal 7 day (24 hour) creation, they see the rejection of it, and embrace of old ages as undermining the first book of the Bible. The foundation. Their argument is consistent, and simply follows from this.

There are many elements of their interpretations I can not embrace, but I still find much of their resources helpful Lilse's lessons on presuppositional apologetics is awesome, IMO.

For starters, if you like, look over the showsthat aired on NRB from October and early November till the 4 and later after November 14, 2011 as I was out that week. Haven't watched any this month - several of those were the ones I am refering too.
-
-
-

Brian, I've seen all those. I usually watch all the apologetic shows on NRB, including 'Answers.'

jlay wrote:Brian, I've seen all those. I usually watch all the apologetic shows on NRB, including 'Answers.'

I haven't seen them. Is there a link to the shows? Maybe on the AIG website?

Looked on NRB and AIG sites and I cannot find any links to previous shows.

One show That I saw Mr. Ham was speaking about society and how in England most of the Churches there were closing up and being turned into bars, homes, etc and the theme I caught form it was that the same is happening in the USA - or will - unless all return to his point of views concerning YEC. This was subtlety repeated many times during the show: a return to YEC will save society…

That is why on a prior thread, I asked if the majority of churches in England were all turning into bars, homes, etc… Remember?

After hearing this, I asked this onn this form. After asking a few friends I have in Leeds, London, and Kent, they said yes, many were in their respective areas but not all. Then I asked the same on this form and the answers varied. It was due to AIG show that week was why I asked this. I thought it rather odd how Mr. Ham constantly made innuendos that if only all society returns to YEC all will be well again… Basically put, if all accept His YEC point of view, God will save society, our political systems, our schools, etc…

What is forgotten and not mentioned was that about 100 years ago YEC was predominate in the USA until around the Scopes trial in the USA and that in itself did not save society, nor did it alone keep the USA free from vice and sin within when it was the predominate viewpoint. So – that was one of the shows, I saw some intellectual twisting used to sell YEC as a cure all.

I know some people will not agree, even after seeing that particular show as like I said, 10 people see the same thing from 10 different angles and you’ll get 10 different opinions on what happened – much like a news talk show. Let us not get into an argument over this as I will refuse to do so. The church is divided enough. It is Christ alone that saves and that is the message all points of view of YEC and OEC should realize. We can disagree about the age of the earth. Because one believes in OEC does not make them the enemy or even a supporter of evolution.

Point I was tying to make was please become aware of how atheist or even an agnostic will use creationism against those witnessing to them. Always stay focused on Christ and do not fall into that trap. You’ll expound for hours your creation view point and thus let them get away without hearing about who and what Christ is and did…
-
-
-

Furstentum,

"The entire universe was created before the six days. Remember that Exodus 20:11 speaks of the making of the sky, the continents, the sea and all that is in them (birds of the sky, land plants and animals, and small and great sea creatures). This, rules out anything beyond the earth’s atmosphere. Also, keep in mind that the creation “days” do not start until Genesis 1:3.


Merism
The first indication that the creation, of the sun and stars (parts of the universe), predates the six days, is that Genesis 1:1 says “the heavens and the earth” were created in the beginning. Dr. Sarfati (Answers in Genesis) argues that this compound Hebrew noun is called a merism, indicating the entire universe. Many Biblical scholars hold this view as well. Merism is a figure of speech which uses contrasting parts to express a totality. Here is an example: Please invite young and old to our dinner party. “Young and old” is a merism meant to include all ages in between.

This fits well with the “old earth” view, in which the entire universe, including the sun, stars and galaxies, would have been created at this time. Dr. Sarfati seems to make the same type of argument for this understanding of Genesis 1:1, but misses the implications of his argument:

“Throughout the Bible (for example, Gen. 14:19, 22; 2 Kings 19:15; Ps. 121:2), this means the totality of creation, not just the earth and its atmosphere, or our solar system alone. It is used because Hebrew has no word for ‘the universe’ and can at best say ‘the all.’” (Emphasis mine)

As you can see, he includes the solar system, which contains the sun and many other moons and planets (all of which fall under the definition of kokab, stars), and more “not just…our solar system alone.” Of course this understanding means that they were not created on day four, but in Gen. 1:1.

Haya
On creation days one, two, and four God says, haya (let there be or allow there to be). The verb haya is used in these verses instead of bara (create) or asa (make). It does not mean “let appear,” as some old-earth creationists have suggested. Each time that God uses haya, as the main verb in His creation command, it institutes a transformation of the atmosphere (Gen. 1:3, 6 & 14). The ultimate outcome is the visibility/appearance of the lights in the sky, but that is not its meaning.

So, let us examine the evidence supporting this interpretation of those three verses. In Job 38:4-7, God says the stars (and angels) were there at the founding/establishing of the earth. Job 38:8-9 tells us how the earth became dark and covered with water (see Gen. 1:2 & Ps. 104:5-6). In Job 38:9, God says that darkness covered the earth, because He covered the earth with thick clouds (Also see A Clear View).

This establishes that something had to happen to this cloudy/foggy proto-atmosphere to allow light to pass through to the observer. So, in Gen. 1:3 haya refers to a transformation in that proto-atmosphere to make it translucent to light. God may have used the collision, which is believed to have formed the moon, to initiate this first “day.” But as we will see, this transformation was only used to thin the cloudy shroud, not to remove it completely.

In Gen. 1:6 God says haya, to cause an open expanse to form in the midst of the waters. Since it is dividing the waters above the expanse from the waters below, it sounds like the global ocean was still shrouded in something like a global fog, steam or mist. Now, this fog became a global cloud layer (waters above), which still blocked the visibility of the individual light sources, but not the light. Compare this second day of creation with its parallels in Ps. 104:3, 13 and Prov. 8:28.

At this point we have established that the first two uses of haya, clearly dealt with a transforming of earth’s atmosphere. Why would anyone think that the third use would be any different?

On the fourth day God again says haya, "Let there be lights." Genesis 1:14-15 is telling us that on the fourth day God broke up the cloud layer. This exposed, to the observer on the planet’s surface (the Holy Spirit; Gen. 1:2), the individual light sources. These verses along with 16-18, also explain to us the important functions that God gave to the lights. In fact this is the main theme for this whole day. It's all about the functions their visibility would permit.

Parenthetical
Since haya is a command about transforming the atmosphere and not about making lights, Genesis 1:16 should be seen as a parenthetical phrase, much like Gen. 2:19. Both of these verses are looking back at completed actions and should be translated with the pluperfect tense. Gen. 1:16 should read “So God had made the two great lights” and Gen. 2:19 should read “the Lord God had formed every beast of the field.” Genesis 1:16 is looking back at the Gen. 1:1 merism and Gen. 1:3, describing what the light was and where it came from. The functions of the lights found in verses 16-18 parallel those found in verses 3-5.

Genesis 2:19 is doing much the same. It gives us more details about how God produced the birds and mammals mentioned earlier in Gen. 1:20-25. It is not contradicting Genesis one where we were told that the land animals and birds came before man.

The Expanse
Again, we can look to Dr. Sarfati’s book to find added support. In his argument against the Framework View, he quotes Dr. Wayne Grudem:

“The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as “lights in the firmament of the heavens” (Gen. 1:14) are placed not in any space created on day 1 but in the “firmament” that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this “firmament” is not mentioned at all on day 1 but five times on day 2 (Gen. 1:6-8) and three times on day 4 (Gen. 1:14-19).”

If we take Dr. Grudem’s lead, we will notice that this “firmament of the heavens” is also mentioned once on day five (Gen. 1:20). Here it is the place that the birds fly. Birds are said to fly across the "face of the firmament of the heavens" or "face of the sky," which Jesus shows us is the cloud layer (Matt. 16:2-3; Luke 12:54, 56). It is furthered mentioned three times (as heavens) on day six, in the phrase “birds of the heavens.”

Genesis 1:17 says “And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth.” The word translated set, natan, literally means give. It can also mean appoint, which I believe is the correct sense here. So God appointed them in the sky to give light, etc. As I mentioned above, the majority of the description of the fourth day is dealing with the functions for which these lights had been appointed. I say "had been" appointed, because the brightest light, the sun, had been able to perform some of its functions since day one (give light on the earth and separate light from darkness). The moon and stars were not bright enough to penetrate the clouds.

The phrase “God appointed them in the firmament of the heavens,” could not possibly mean that they were placed in the atmosphere. Yet, as Dr. Grudem and I have pointed out, that is exactly where they are said to have been given/appointed. Remember that the “firmament,” “firmament of the heavens,” and “heavens,” of Gen. 1:3-29, are consistently defined as the expanse between the clouds and ocean, where the birds fly. The very fact the clouds are said to be the upper bounds for this “firmament,” shows that God was not saying that the lights were placed in it. Everyone could see that the clouds pass in front of not behind the lights (Job 26:8-9; Ezek. 32:7-8).

Had God wanted to say that the lights were made on day four, He could have said that they were “set in the heavens.” Without the mention of a firmament, waters or birds, this would have pointed us to the heavens of Genesis 1:1, the universe. Instead, as mentioned above, He told us that on day four the lights were appointed in the atmosphere.

I believe that these combined arguments force the interpretation that the “lights” were already in the universe, but now became visible to the Spirit looking up into and through the “firmament” (atmosphere), to what lay beyond. Therefore, they were not placed or set in the firmament, but given or appointed (when God parted the clouds) in order to be the daily, seasonal, and yearly signs needed by the advanced life forms God was about to create.

Here is my translation of day four in light of this and the previous chapter:
“And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

(God had made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars)

And God appointed them in the expanse of the sky to shine upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.”

The point of the forth day is the atmosphere's transformation, not the lights creation. Therefore, the order of events in Genesis one is correct."

Furstentum,

You asked:
"I do like RickD's explanation ''[the sun] only became visible from the earth's surface from day 4'' ...but who was around to witness this?"

"I would like to point out that the initial conditions found in Gen. 1:2 include the fact that the Holy Spirit is hovering or moving over the surface of the waters. Because of this, we should understand everything that follows from His perspective. In other words, He is looking around, above, and below the water’s surface. He is not at some point beyond earth. Further support for the earth's surface being the frame of reference comes from days 4 and 5. The lights can only act as signs from the viewpoint of the earth. Likewise, when it says that the birds fly "above the earth, across the face of the sky (expanse of the heavens)," this is from an earth bound view. The "face of the sky," is the cloud layer as seen by the observer below it."

I remember when Ken Ham came to my church and he seemed more concerned about selling his product then witnessing Christ. I was encourage when I came across this article from Answers in Creation, in that it seemed to support what I always believed to be true. I apologize if this article was posted somewhere else on this forum. I'm a infrequent visitor to these boards, but reference the material here quite often. God bless everyone here, OEC & YEC alike!

http://www.answersincreation.org/complaint.htm

Read the article. It's sad to see the continued decline of Ken Ham and AIG into combativeness and division. He continues to alienate himself from former colleagues in ministry and organizations which worked with him in ministry and distributing home schooling materials.

This is a man who claims the high ground in literally holding to the teaching of plain scripture but then blatantly disobeys and ignores it when it is not convenient to his money-making enterprises.

Maybe Ken should get his head out of Genesis and remind himself what scripture says about taking brothers to court.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Read the article. It's sad to see the continued decline of Ken Ham and AIG into combativeness and division. He continues to alienate himself from former colleagues in ministry and organizations which worked with him in ministry and distributing home schooling materials.

This is a man who claims the high ground in literally holding to the teaching of plain scripture but then blatantly disobeys and ignores it when it is not convenient to his money-making energies.

Maybe Ken should get his head out of Genesis and remind himself what scripture says about taking brothers to court.

The devil must be having a field day seeing this going on - Christians battling each other like this. However - whether I'd call Ham a Christian is another matter - he seems to be setting himself as another Joseph Smith. Would not surprise me if he started saying that people need to believe in him to be saved.

Silvertusk.

I don't see that happening. There are a lot of indications to me that raise flags however in terms of a movement heading for cult-like status.