Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:

There are a few available online articles on how the Bing Bang cosmological model has serious faults, and they may be acquired at http://www.creationmoments.com . You can also sign up for their daily e-meditation which involves Creationism in every one emailed out . They look at the Animal Kingdom as well as Cosmology and Biology/Physics.

The "Bing Bang" (sic)? Is that the belief that the universe came collectively from a Cherry?

Jason Lisle of AIG has an excellent treatise on dissent of the Big Bang model if you go to http://www.answersingenesis.org and...there is a DVD available on the topic too. Do a google under : Problems with the Big Bang model, too.

Here's an article from another direction which affirms the Big Bang, although it is 7 years old which is an eternity in the strides being made in this but it's clear that the Big Bang theory in terms of physical evidence is as strong a supported theory as any in science today.

http://www.answersincreation.org/articles/big_bang.htm

Personally , I believe what is referred to as 'the (secular) Big Bang' , was really Gods willful power being executed in 'speading out the universe as a tent' (The Bible) with fully formed Planets , Stars, Suns, etc... guided and masterfully sustained with all the required laws of physics and LIfe Enabling Constants accompanying them for our eventual arrival on the scene . ANd the popular secular ideology of Stellar Evolution..that is, hydrogen and helium gases coalescing (sp?) and condensing into planets and such...is not accurate ; and this also includes the fallacious idea of Hugh Ross cosmology that our Moon came to be from a giant ASTERIOD knocking a chunk of Earth off as shown in his DVD that i have. Our God is One who CREATIVELY designs and engineers and he doesnt waste time nor give the impression that Stellar Evolution is somehow credible as the way he went about it . The Bible says that HE spoke and it WAS --- an instanteous execution of his Will. Sadly, secular Stellar Evolution and Darwinian Evolution theories have been embraced by naive Christians who are intimidated by the vehement indoctrination of secular naturalism so they try to blend Gods revealed Creation Account in Genesis with that of prevailing secular models to come up with Day/Age and Progressive Creationism . In so doing, they dont put their faith fully in Gods method of Creation but place their confidence in what those say who claim to be wise in their own eyes (that being, secular Scientists who dont know everything and are still in the discovery mode) .

What did the Old Earth Creationists do before modern science? This is just more of the common baloney spouted by YEC propagandists who can't deal with contrary opinions even within their own faith without appeaing to their interpretation of Scripture as the equivalent of Scripture itself.

In fact, if you look at the history in literature, it's YEC as it's commonly expressed today in the US (interestingly enough, YEC is practically non-existant in other parts of the world) that has radically changed in it's desire to mold science to fit their expectations rather than letting evidence lead where it does without that bias being introduced.

There were precious FEW OECists before modern science. In fact, ALL of our Modern Science Founders were Bible Believing YECists and its quite funny to even think of an Old Testament Person imagining millions and billions of years in the Book of Genesis which they had before them., let alone a 'Big Bang' spewing gases and material in every which direction and eventually condensing into planets . This is what happens when people dont trust the Word of God completely...they start siding with anything that sounds good from the scientific community which are people in the stage of discovery and who werent there when the Cosmos was created on a razors edge. You might make some evolutionary Friends from siding with their ideology, but at the expense of Gods Word, Gods nature, and Gods perfect Character.

CallMeDave wrote:

RickD wrote:

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:Sounds like a slam dunk to me. Let's pack up the OEC bags, and move out of dodge. Someone says the bible says something, so that must be true.

I think the guy was raising an issue for discussion not claiming a "slam dunk"

Stu, I believe Dr. Dave is enlightening us with his absolute wisdom, when it comes to biblical interpretation in OEC/YEC issues. If a YEC site claims the bible says something, we darn well should know that if we disagree with their interpretation, then we are all compromisers.

Correct. Compromisers of the truth of Gods Word in Genesis. God wanted us all to know how he created the Cosmos and he told us plainly ; but today even Christians are willing to try to infuse secular evolutionary philosophies into the inspired Word of God ...with many even denouncing Genesis as historical fact. Shame to them. Even Jesus himself claimed Genesis to be historical fact . But it seems its just not enough for those who must make 4.5 billions years fit in 168 hours in order to stay friends with the secular Evolutionists . Whats going to happen to your OEC when modern science eventually gets around to discovering that the Universe only LOOKED that old but really isnt ? What kind of backpeddling will you have to do then ?

Dave, if you have been listening to anything we've been saying, or if you really knew what OECers believed THEMSELVES, then you would realize that we do believe in a LITERAL interpretation of scripture. All of scripture, not only Genesis. And, I agree that God told us that He created the universe, but if it was so plain, then we wouldn't be disagreeing. Please, for the love of intellectual honesty, stop thinking that OECers believe what AIG, Ken Ham, and Jason Lisle say we believe.

Yom does not mean 24 hours every time, in scripture. That alone, should make you see that it's not as plain as you claim. There is no compromising of ANY doctrines pertaining to Jesus Christ, whatsoever, in an OEC view. If you can't see that, then you're bearing a false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ, who disagree with you on a NON-ESSENTIAL DOCTRINE!!!

RickD wrote:

The Bible says that HE spoke and it WAS --- an instanteous execution of his Will. Sadly, secular Stellar Evolution and Darwinian Evolution theories have been embraced by naive Christians who are intimidated by the vehement indoctrination of secular naturalism so they try to blend Gods revealed Creation Account in Genesis with that of prevailing secular models to come up with Day/Age and Progressive Creationism . In so doing, they dont put their faith fully in Gods method of Creation but place their confidence in what those say who claim to be wise in their own eyes (that being, secular Scientists who dont know everything and are still in the discovery mode) .

Is that what OEC teaches? Wow, I'm glad you've enlightened me on what OEC really is. I don't know why I hadn't just taken Jason Lisle's word for it before. I hope you'll forgive me, Dave. God must have sent you here with this new information that we had never heard before. Up until now, my eyes had been blind to this OEC heresy. You have such a way of pointing out absolute truth(as opposed to narrow YEC opinion). I just don't know how this slipped past me before.

Theres no excuse for allowing yourself to compromise Gods revealed facts on how he created the Universe. He wanted you to know how he did it, and it wasnt the way that Stellar Evolutionists propose . Youve allowed yourself to read much secular ideology into the sentences of Genesis and its about time you returned to trusting in Genesis which is part of Gods inspired Word to you . Dont trust Men in white coats over what Gods Word and youll do fine. Remember 'a Person who is friends with the World is an enemy of God...for you cannot love both. Youll either hate one and love the other' -- New Testament warning.

Theres no excuse for allowing yourself to compromise Gods revealed facts on how he created the Universe. He wanted you to know how he did it, and it wasnt the way that Stellar Evolutionists propose . Youve allowed yourself to read much secular ideology into the sentences of Genesis and its about time you returned to trusting in Genesis which is part of Gods inspired Word to you . Dont trust Men in white coats over what Gods Word and youll do fine. Remember 'a Person who is friends with the World is an enemy of God...for you cannot love both. Youll either hate one and love the other' -- New Testament warning.

Who is God's word Dave? is it the Bible?

There is more evidence to suggest that the Earth is ancient in its origins then what is solely based on cosmology.

Watch the following video. Pay close attention to the part where they are studying the long sedimentary cores taken from deep ocean drillsites around the world. According to this documentary, the magentic pole has shifted as many as 300 times in earth's history, one magnetic shift occuring once every 250 000 years or so based on the alignment of iron particles to the north or south of the perspective pole. Seems to me that science, not only in cosmology but also geology, backs up the Bible's claim that the Earth is ancient, something that the Christian martyr Justin Martyr in the first century claimed and St. Augustine in the sixth century also claimed.

When North Goes South, CBC's The Nature of Things

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureo ... 1678474875

Theres no excuse for allowing yourself to compromise Gods revealed facts on how he created the Universe. He wanted you to know how he did it, and it wasnt the way that Stellar Evolutionists propose . Youve allowed yourself to read much secular ideology into the sentences of Genesis and its about time you returned to trusting in Genesis which is part of Gods inspired Word to you . Dont trust Men in white coats over what Gods Word and youll do fine. Remember 'a Person who is friends with the World is an enemy of God...for you cannot love both. Youll either hate one and love the other' -- New Testament warning.

Dave, you still don't get it. Aig's interpretation of the Genesis creation story, is an INTERPRETATION. Their interpretation is not equal to scripture itself. You still keep claiming that if one holds to an old earth belief, then one is compromising the work of Christ, and changing the nature of God. While you keep spouting the rhetoric, you have no proof for your assertions, other than " because Jason Lisle said so". If you keep misrepresenting Christians, by your " my interpretation is equal to scripture, and anyone who disagrees with me is compromising" garbage, you're going to have to find another avenue to peddle your crap. You act like we are to be graced with your presence, and that nobody has ever heard the interpretation that you are putting forth. It's not the compromising that you claim OECs have, that is hurting the cause of Christ. It's your judgmental, holier than thou attitude, and your "most secular scientists are conspiring against God" rhetoric that is turning unbelievers away from Christ.

RickD wrote:

Theres no excuse for allowing yourself to compromise Gods revealed facts on how he created the Universe. He wanted you to know how he did it, and it wasnt the way that Stellar Evolutionists propose . Youve allowed yourself to read much secular ideology into the sentences of Genesis and its about time you returned to trusting in Genesis which is part of Gods inspired Word to you . Dont trust Men in white coats over what Gods Word and youll do fine. Remember 'a Person who is friends with the World is an enemy of God...for you cannot love both. Youll either hate one and love the other' -- New Testament warning.

Dave, you still don't get it. Aig's interpretation of the Genesis creation story, is an INTERPRETATION. Their interpretation is not equal to scripture itself. You still keep claiming that if one holds to an old earth belief, then one is compromising the work of Christ, and changing the nature of God. While you keep spouting the rhetoric, you have no proof for your assertions, other than " because Jason Lisle said so". If you keep misrepresenting Christians, by your " my interpretation is equal to scripture, and anyone who disagrees with me is compromising" garbage, you're going to have to find another avenue to peddle your crap. You act like we are to be graced with your presence, and that nobody has ever heard the interpretation that you are putting forth. It's not the compromising that you claim OECs have, that is hurting the cause of Christ. It's your judgmental, holier than thou attitude, and your "most secular scientists are conspiring against God" rhetoric that is turning unbelievers away from Christ.

There were precious FEW OECists before modern science.

Factually incorrect. If you're not afraid of learning something that doesn't fit in with your preconceived epistimology (and I use that term somewhat loosely in light of the views you hold) then take a look at this article with direct sourcing in the early church fathers and you'll see that an OEC view in terms of the length on days in Genesis with the word "yom" has been present and in fact at times in history the majority view before the advent of modern science.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/churchfathers.htm

In fact, ALL of our Modern Science Founders were Bible Believing YECists and its quite funny to even think of an Old Testament Person imagining millions and billions of years in the Book of Genesis which they had before them., let alone a 'Big Bang' spewing gases and material in every which direction and eventually condensing into planets.

Factually incorrect and misleading. First you start with a universal appeal which requires only one exception to refute. Further, I've seen this claim as put forward by Henry Morris, which whether you realize it or not is where the claim comes from. The evidence he provides for such founders of modern science is selective and often all he provides is evidence that they were Christian and Bible-believers but he provides no direct evidence that they were Young Earth Creationists. He infers that because they were Christians and affirmed the Bible that in all cases that proves that they were Young Earth Creationists because, "as everyone knows" that's what the Bible teaches. That same fallacious reasoning is demonstrated in your post. Further, when it's refuted the common tactic employed is to fall back on games of definition and deny that the proferred evidence about an individual for some reason now disqualifies them to considered as a "founder."

Further, the "founders of modern science" includes non-Christians and so this claim is simpy absurd as science encompasses far more than the narrow OEC and YEC argument.

As a corallary, here's a list of 100 notable Christians, most current, some from the past who are open to an Old Earth interpratation.

http://www.oocities.org/vr_junkie/Notab ... tm#Aalders

This is what happens when people dont trust the Word of God completely...they start siding with anything that sounds good from the scientific community which are people in the stage of discovery and who werent there when the Cosmos was created on a razors edge. You might make some evolutionary Friends from siding with their ideology, but at the expense of Gods Word, Gods nature, and Gods perfect Character.

This is an ad hominem attack and you've made it continually without supporting the argument. So, I'm going to return the favor CallmeDave, only this is addressed to the validity of your argument, and not you personally. When YECs continue to repeat claims without providing evidence or respoding directly to refutations it has all the value in terms of rational discourse of playing Tic Tac Toe with a chicken at a carnival. It looks like the chicken is engaging and playing every game to a "victory" or a "draw" but in fact there's a program in the background that is lighting the squares which the chicken then pecks and is rewarded behaviorally with a food pellet and the people outside are led to believe that there's some real intelligence there. Dave, step back for a moment, take a deep breath and see if you can perhaps entertatin the idea for a moment that there's more to this argument than what you in all likeliood, based on the evidence you've provided thus far, are simply drawing from your secondary sources in an attempt to engage and refute outside of your own personal familiarity with the issues first hand. There's a difference between that and independent thought and engagement with source materials.

Try it sometime. You might find it interesting, not only in the realm of science outside the tired strawman arguments you parrot but also in the realm of theology and religious history which you might be amazed is far more broad than your narrow, biased absolute claims.

In any event, I am going to ask you to start supporting your claims and engage with the responses you're being given without the summary statements of deflection, dismissal and then repetition of the challenged concept without support as if that in and of itself answers the question.

If you want to engage, you're welcome to do so and you're welcome to disagree. The pronouncements from on high without support are not adding anything here. We're all capable of going to AIG to see what they say about something (although we're not free to discuss things as unlike our site dissent and conversation is not permitted there.)

RickD wrote:

Theres no excuse for allowing yourself to compromise Gods revealed facts on how he created the Universe. He wanted you to know how he did it, and it wasnt the way that Stellar Evolutionists propose . Youve allowed yourself to read much secular ideology into the sentences of Genesis and its about time you returned to trusting in Genesis which is part of Gods inspired Word to you . Dont trust Men in white coats over what Gods Word and youll do fine. Remember 'a Person who is friends with the World is an enemy of God...for you cannot love both. Youll either hate one and love the other' -- New Testament warning.

Dave, you still don't get it. Aig's interpretation of the Genesis creation story, is an INTERPRETATION. Their interpretation is not equal to scripture itself. You still keep claiming that if one holds to an old earth belief, then one is compromising the work of Christ, and changing the nature of God. While you keep spouting the rhetoric, you have no proof for your assertions, other than " because Jason Lisle said so". If you keep misrepresenting Christians, by your " my interpretation is equal to scripture, and anyone who disagrees with me is compromising" garbage, you're going to have to find another avenue to peddle your crap. You act like we are to be graced with your presence, and that nobody has ever heard the interpretation that you are putting forth. It's not the compromising that you claim OECs have, that is hurting the cause of Christ. It's your judgmental, holier than thou attitude, and your "most secular scientists are conspiring against God" rhetoric that is turning unbelievers away from Christ.

Infusing an evolutionary philosophy is in diametric opposition to the revealed text of scripture. A 'god' who would use the cruel, inefficient, wasteful, and death filled processes of the random, purposeless mechanisms of naturalistic Stellar Evolution contrasts so radically with the God described in the pages of the Bible that one wonders how the two characters could ever be thought to be in harmony. Yet there are many theologians and evangelical scholars who insist that our understanding of the mechanics of creation must accomodate a hybridization of naturalistic science (day-age) and biblical revelation. The common denominator among all of these various hybrid systems of interpretation is the elevation of mans 'discoveries' over and above the plain words of God.

End.

End?

I'll give you this Dave, you're antics are entertaining. You're not only infallably right on everything, you're also in charge.

There's no end here. There was no beginning on which to base it. All you've done here iscit and paste other people's thinking for you and avoided engaging with the many detailed responses you've been given.

There's no end of the Ken Ham, AIG and others information you've provided here. There's no shortage either of the responses here it on our main board. What there's been a shortage of here Dave is meaningful engagement from you and respect from you for the time and effort that's been given to the unsupported claims and accusations that you've made.

If you're ever willing to start a real conversation you're welcome. If all you have is the canned presentations of others, just leave a link; you're not contributing anything to the conversation.

CallMeDave,

There is mounting scientific evidence which discredits the popular 'Big Bang' / Stellar Evolution theory ; here is one such evidence which I recieved this morning on my subscribed online Devotional . If you are interested in such topics, you can subscribe to get their daily e-creation devotionals (see the very bottom of this post) . There is permission to reprint the following :
Science News, 10/8/05, pp. 235-236, Ron Cowen, "Crisis in the Cosmos?"

That 2005 article is just a bunch of maybes. Here is the article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502092/posts

Here are some articles from Reasons To Believe which have bearing on this subject:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/birth-d ... erse-s-age
http://www.reasons.org/articles/fossils ... n-creation

Young-earth astronomy seems to have gotten nowhere in the last 13 years,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -cosmology
since Dr. Danny Faulkner wrote about it in 1998.
http://www.genesisfiles.com/Guest_Artic ... ronomy.htm

Funny that Dr. Lisle, after publically saying that he would participate in the debate with Dr. Ross, in front of professional Christian astronomers, back out of it. Dr. Faulkner did live up to his word and participated.

The debate on the old-earth and young-earth positions on the universe was reviewed by professional practicing Christian astronomers. They responded that the evidence presented, supported the old-earth view. Their assessment can be read here: http://www.reasons.org/special-edition- ... e-universe

A final exchange followed some months later and videos should be coming in the near future, from the John Ankerberg Show.

Dave,

Maybe you can answer my challenge on the seventh day. It is near the bottom of this link.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 8&start=30

There were precious FEW OECists before modern science.

What date are you putting on this event?

Dave,

A 'god' who would use the cruel, inefficient, wasteful, and death filled processes of the random, purposeless mechanisms of naturalistic Stellar Evolution contrasts so radically with the God described in the pages of the Bible that one wonders how the two characters could ever be thought to be in harmony.

I didn't know that stars were alive. Do you believe that God creates snowflakes, or do you believe that God put laws in place that allow them to form? I mean, to think that God would allow water vapor to condense around something like a dust particle and then temperature and air currents act on it, to form a beautiful snowflake. Different temperatures give you different shapes. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snow ... s/faqs.htm

Come on, A 'god' who would use the cruel, inefficient, wasteful, and death filled processes of the random, purposeless mechanisms of naturalistic Snowflake Evolution contrasts so radically with the God described in the pages of the Bible that one wonders how the two characters could ever be thought to be in harmony.

Stu wrote:Interesting, have you got any more info surrounding this, a link perhaps?

, Acting as a humble Christian, I asked, "In proclaiming the TRUTH of God's
Word and Love, why would He begin on page 1 with something that alienates every science student over 30 generations?" Happily I have now finished a 3 year study into Biblical science and found the answer. "Hanging the earth on nothing"; "circle of the earth"; " write on the tablet of your heart"; and the "earth's entropy", are all scientific writings read by millions over thousands of years and NOBODY understood till our science had caught up. Scripture has now opened up again totally explaining Big Bang creation. Please read this at <blog.pebbleanrock.org>. It explains what is outside our universe, black holes, dark energy and other stuff, all from/through Scripture. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Peter Shepherd

I personally feel that, since the origins of the universe can be known to come not from the physical but from the non-physical and also outside of time itself, that the massive creative event caused a ripple effect in time, creating the past and future in one stroke. Now, using our linear perception of time, we see these supposed millions of years having passed when in fact we are seeing Gods creation that happened outside of time in effect. Regarding timelessness, 14 trillion years is what? a blink of an eye? No, it is not, it is not 14 trillion years either. It is no years. It is us who ascribe a timeline to relative time which itself did not exist outside of the physical universe. If the reason the universe exists at all is to have intelligent life, then that is the creation itself and everything else that we perceive leading up to that is just a mechanism to facilitate the creation. The ripple effect of the massive event. Outside of time, if the creation is for intelligent life, then man supersedes the dinosaur, and creation happened well in the future of the giant lizards.