Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:Ummm...What's the big deal here? So Dawkins admits what pretty much every reasonable person in his situation would. Even atheists can't be certain about their belief 100%, because you cannot disprove God. Simple as that. Most Christians I know would have the same reaction...They certainly believe in Jesus as their savior, but at the same time you cannot prove God, so there is no 100%.

Not knowing isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of natural human curiosity and a good job of always questioning.

Therein lies a misconception, because, a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) can be shown to exist by what has been created , by the extremely narrow fine tuned LIfe Enabling Constants (some amounting to the 120th decimal place allowable tolerance otherwise Earth isnt here) and amounting to over 150 which all required and working in unison with one another, by what Christ taught about God who then went on to do a ressurection from the dead which no one has done before, and the Bible which can be shown to be a supernatural work (ie : Modern science confirming what the Bible recorded 3-4,000 years b.c. on dozens of scientific processes) . If a person is WILLING to do a bit of investigation, the will discocver the personal Creator of the Universe who is also their Creator....but it requires setting aside ones pride and rebellion not to go looking. Few atheists are willing to go looking but for those who are, they usually end up forsaking atheism for the truth .

callmedave wrote:

Richard Dawkins is the atheists Guru...an Evolutionary Zoologist whos written a few books and has gone on the debate circuit except he refuses to debate very seasoned Apologists like Dr. William Lane Craig or Dr. Norman Geisler . He would be torn to shreds if he did.

Dave, do you really think Craig and Geisner are good, biblical apologists?

RickD wrote:callmedave wrote:

Richard Dawkins is the atheists Guru...an Evolutionary Zoologist whos written a few books and has gone on the debate circuit except he refuses to debate very seasoned Apologists like Dr. William Lane Craig or Dr. Norman Geisler . He would be torn to shreds if he did.

Dave, do you really think Craig and Geisner are good, biblical apologists?

Our top two best...hands down. Except I dont agree with their OEC view.

CallmeDave wrote:

Our top two best...hands down. Except I dont agree with their OEC view.

Top two? According to you, they are:

Compromisers of the truth of Gods Word in Genesis

And, because they believe in stellar evolution, according to you, Craig and Geisler are:

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) .

Furthermore you said:

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.

So, according to you, the "top two best" Christian apologists, are "friends with the world", "are enemies of God", and "hate God".

And, according to you, Dave, these two best Christian apologists, elevate man's discoveries, "above the plain words of God", in your quote here:

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.

So, how, according to you, could these two compromising, enemies of God, be effective(nevermind the two best) apologists for Christ, if they are so deluded, as to believe in man's discoveries, over the plain words of God?

RickD wrote:CallmeDave wrote:

Our top two best...hands down. Except I dont agree with their OEC view.

Top two? According to you, they are:

Compromisers of the truth of Gods Word in Genesis

And, because they believe in stellar evolution, according to you, Craig and Geisler are:

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) .

Furthermore you said:

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.

So, according to you, the "top two best" Christian apologists, are "friends with the world", "are enemies of God", and "hate God".

And, according to you, Dave, these two best Christian apologists, elevate man's discoveries, "above the plain words of God", in your quote here:

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.

So, how. according to you, could these two compromising, enemies of God, be effective(nevermind the two best) apologists for Christ, if they are so deluded, as to believe in man's discoveries, over the plain words of God?

Very simple . There are many Christian Scholars and Apologists who hold to an Old Universe/Earth who are still sound in other Christian Apologetic issues concerning defense of a personal theistic Creator for Origins , Biblical inerrancy, inspiration of the Bible, Proofs for the Ressurection, et al. These two top Christian Ambassadors like so many of us...choose to infuse the latest modern scientific discoveries into the Creation narrative over the basic, plain, and understandable Words of God due to pressure to conform, since Science is vastly considered a diety unto itself by the Populace ; this pressure to conform can affect the quiet reserved common church goer all the way to monumental Authors and Achievers as we find in Christendon today.

Heres another treatise which just arrived from Creation Moments for you to consider :

THIS WEEK:

The age of the Earth:
Does it really matter?

Here at Creation Moments, we stand firm in the belief that God created the heavens and the earth in six 24-hour days. We also believe that creation week took place less than 10,000 years ago … and that this subject is very important!

Not surprisingly, atheistic evolutionists mock our view. Sad to say, many creationists do the same. They take an old-earth position, basing their views primarily on science rather than the Word of God. Discussions between young-earth and old-earth creationists can get pretty heated. But when all is said and done, young-earth creationism is the only position that honors God by being consistent with biblical truth.

This Week's Creation Action Moment

You don't need to be a scientist or theologian to understand this vital issue. This week we've put together a handy list of articles that support the young-earth position on origins. All of the following articles – plus many more on the subject – can be found in the Articles Library at the Creation Moments website. We hope you'll find these articles informative and useful as you stand firm on the truth of God's inerrant Word!

The Age of the Earth by Ian Taylor

How Can the Earth Be Relatively Young When Scientists Tell Us that Rocks Are Billions of Years Old? by Ian Taylor

Billions of Years for the Earth! by Ian Taylor

Genesis Stands! by Richard Niessen

Light from the Bible on Evolution's Calendar by Robin D. Fish

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sad to say, many creationists do the same. They take an old-earth position, basing their views primarily on science rather than the Word of God. Discussions between young-earth and old-earth creationists can get pretty heated. But when all is said and done, young-earth creationism is the only position that honors God by being consistent with biblical truth.

Dave, many of us have told you that we OECers base our views on our literal interpretation of the bible. We just don't hold to the same interpretation as YECers. You continually post inaccurate information. No intelligent, honest, OECer, who is a Christian would take the word of scientists OVER scripture. Just because you keep posting someone's articles that say it, doesn't make it true. Young earth creationism is not the only position that is consistent with biblical truth.

CallmeDave wrote:

Very simple . There are many Christian Scholars and Apologists who hold to an Old Universe/Earth who are still sound in other Christian Apologetic issues concerning defense of a personal theistic Creator for Origins , Biblical inerrancy, inspiration of the Bible, Proofs for the Ressurection, et al.

But Dave, you have said that :

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

So, according to you, these two best apologists, cause "specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way." If I believed certain people twisted the major doctrines of Christianity, and changed the character and nature of God, then I certainly wouldn't say they were the two best Christian apologists. I would probably say they weren't even Christian. Anyone IMO, who believes something that changes "major doctrines" of Christianity, isn't even a brother in Christ, in my book.
You really need to step back and examine what you're saying. You are not being consistent in your arguments.

RickD wrote:

Sad to say, many creationists do the same. They take an old-earth position, basing their views primarily on science rather than the Word of God. Discussions between young-earth and old-earth creationists can get pretty heated. But when all is said and done, young-earth creationism is the only position that honors God by being consistent with biblical truth.

Dave, many of us have told you that we OECers base our views on our literal interpretation of the bible. We just don't hold to the same interpretation as YECers. You continually post inaccurate information. No intelligent, honest, OECer, who is a Christian would take the word of scientists OVER scripture. Just because you keep posting someone's articles that say it, doesn't make it true. Young earth creationism is not the only position that is consistent with biblical truth.

CallmeDave wrote:

Very simple . There are many Christian Scholars and Apologists who hold to an Old Universe/Earth who are still sound in other Christian Apologetic issues concerning defense of a personal theistic Creator for Origins , Biblical inerrancy, inspiration of the Bible, Proofs for the Ressurection, et al.

But Dave, you have said that :

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

So, according to you, these two best apologists, cause "specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way." If I believed certain people twisted the major doctrines of Christianity, and changed the character and nature of God, then I certainly wouldn't say they were the two best Christian apologists. I would probably say they weren't even Christian. Anyone IMO, who believes something that changes "major doctrines" of Christianity, isn't even a brother in Christ, in my book.
You really need to step back and examine what you're saying. You are not being consistent in your arguments.

Your making a hybrid case for Creation incorporating secular science and the Word of God. You cant do that . How do you possible get millions of years in 'morning and evening' which is then followed by more creation cultimating in 'morning and evening' again ?

I can love and support my fellow top Apologists while disagreeing theyve found the truth in an Old Universe and Old Earth. I dont believe in some of Billy Grahams ideology either because its counter to the Bible.

If you dont wish to consider the reasons for a YE view, then, that is your perogative., but ive given you them. I can still call you my Brother and look forward to meeting you one in heaven and perhaps we will have a darn good laugh about it all. But i suspect that ONE of us is going to feel a bit silly...at least for a microsecond once we get there whan all truth is revealed to us.

Your making a hybrid case for Creation incorporating secular science and the Word of God. You cant do that .

No I'm not, Dave. I'm looking at scripture, which God inspired, and nature, which God created. There cannot be contradictions between nature and scripture, because God is the author of both.

How do you possible get millions of years in 'morning and evening' which is then followed by more creation cultimating in 'morning and evening' again ?

Dave, this is a good article on "morning and evening", and explains it from an Old Earth pov.:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

If you dont wish to consider the reasons for a YE view, then, that is your perogative., but ive given you them.

But, I have, Dave. As I told you before, I used to be a YECer. I started to see that while YEC is a valid biblical interpretation, it's inconsistent with the record of nature. Then I started studying the subject, with the help of Hugh Ross, Rich Deem, and others. Then I could see that OEC is a valid biblical interpretation, and OEC is also a valid interpretation of what we see in God's creation.

I can still call you my Brother and look forward to meeting you one in heaven

And, this is why it's so important to us, that you are honest about what we believe. This is why we get so upset when you keep saying we believe something, just because AIG, Jason Lisle, or Ken Ham, says we believe it. This OEC/YEC argument is not an argument about the essential beliefs of Christianity, including the atonement of Christ.

It would be really nice if the new, uneducated, overly emotional, personal-axe-to-grind atheists realized that modern science is pointing in the direction of an individual creator. In fact, I'm now forming the opinion that many atheists have simply been burned in some way or another by Christianity (or a Christian practicing it improperly) and now have deep-seated anger towards it. Many of them, like Dawkins when probed, admit that there could very well be A God, but its "DEFINITELY NOT THE CHRISTIAN GOD! HE'S JUST A BIG FAIRY-TALE".

So much anger about an imaginary friend!

CallMeDave,

I used to be a Y.E. creationist, but found that they distort the Bible. They say:
1) Animals did not die before Adam sinned. There are no verses that say this. They have to distort Gen. 1:29-30; Is. 11 and 65, and Romans 5:12.
2) Creation will be restored (the Bible says that it will be destroyed and replaced).
3) That the flood was global. Where? Genesis 6-9 do not. Other creation texts in the Bible say the oposite and so did Peter. Jesus never said, even though Y.E. creationists try to say He did. In fact, what He did say, fits better with a local, but universal flood.
4) etc.

Why did you not respond to my challenges to you here?
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 4&start=15