Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:
Hold on right there...you say that you think that a literal interpretation of the creation story is required, but then you start off by saying that random passages are just metaphors about God's glory? By that logic, couldn't I just say that the six days of creation are just a metaphor to show how God is capable of creating everything out of nothing?

Ivellious, an old earth/progressive creation interpretation is a literal interpretation. Just not as literal and concrete as most young earth interpretations.

Ivellious wrote:
Also, as far as creating "two lights", you do realize that the moon is just a chunk of cooled molten Earth, right? It's a rock, nothing more, nothing less. An important rock, yes, but it isn't really a "light" any more than the Earth itself is a "light".

As far as scripture calling the moon a light, that comes from the Hebrew word Ma'owr, which would include a luminary such as the moon.

Ivellious, an old earth/progressive creation interpretation is a literal interpretation. Just not as literal and concrete as most young earth interpretations.

I understand...I was simply pointing out that it seemed strange for one to demand that a strict "literal" interpretation was all that could be used to explain the history of the universe, but then that a line from Genesis was described as being metaphorical about God's greatness. I wasn't saying that anything else wasn't literal.

As far as scripture calling the moon a light, that comes from the Hebrew word Ma'owr, which would include a luminary such as the moon.

Fair enough. I can't say that I've studied the Hebrew meanings of the words in the Bible.

RickD wrote:markust, I believe it's important to understand the perspective given to the reader of Genesis 1. Read Genesis 1:1-2

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
The perspective of the narrative is the surface of the earth, as seen from verse 2 "Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters".

So, from the text itself, I believe the sun was created before verse 1. One can speculate if the sun was created at the beginning of the first creation "day", or before the first "day".

As far as the perspective of the reader, he or she to my understanding could read it with either the view from the surface of the earth or the atmosphere above and still recieve the same interpretation. Different perspectives don't gather opposing information, only different interpretations do. If I percieved one side of an apple, and you looked upon the other, and I said, "look, its a bruise!" you would say, "let me see?" and I would turn it around and give you a different perspective of the apple. But then you might say, "that's not a bruise, its just a natural shade to that small part of the apple." The conflict isn't our different perspectives, it is are our separate interpretations from what we percieve.

When I read "The earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep," I imagine looking upon the surface of the earth from a distance, but also I look at it close up as if upon the waters themselves. Just as in science, the more one observes something, the better one can interpret the information processed in our brain. Going back to the apple, all we did was look at it. It's easy for us as sinful men to take one look at something and make a judgment (Don't judge a book by its cover). We shouldn't have just looked at the apple and trust our assumptions upon the issue. We need to get all the facts. So when I touched the place we percieved with our eyes, I feel a slight dent in the apple, and without ignoring such evidence you would perhaps agree that it indeed was a bruise. Now I'm not trying to say that "you didn't see what I saw" stuff. I just want to compare our interpretations of the creation story and put forth the evidences before our eyes.

RickD wrote:Genesis 1:16 is not saying that the sun and the stars were created on the fourth day. Here's the verse:

Genesis 1:16:
16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
I believe a better translation may be "God had made the two great lights...
Meaning that God had made them sometime in the past.

I find your interpretation that the sun and stars were created before day one interesting. Genesis 1:1 says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." You spoke that you believe the sun was created before verse 1, but this conflicts with verse 1 itself. There is no before the beginning within this universe of time. "Re'shiyth" is the word translated "In the beginning" which also is translated "chief" or "first." It is a word meaning first or primary. God has created a sequence of events (timeline), clearly detailed and expressed in the words of Genesis 1.

You said that Genesis 1:16 is not saying the sun and stars were created on the fourth day of "creation," but that they are now visible. So then what was created on the fourth day? Though you may believe a better translation is "God had made," it is illogical because every day he states that he made something on that specific day (Let there be). Even Genesis 1:17 speaks that He "placed" them into their specific places on that day after he made them. I am familiar with the scientific understandings that light would take millions and millions of years to reach earth from the stars, and that such a theory conflicts with the young earth idea that the earth is merely 6000 years old. People accepting the science put forth by scientists' conclusions who also trust in God's Word tend to read God's Word and comparing the information. Whereas this is smart, to compare scripture to scientific evidences, it tends to give the mind a different interpretation of God's word in light of the context of scientific discoveries. I myself have looked into much of this and notice one thing throughout much of modern science. It is almost always researched without recognizing the possibility of the supernatural occuring. God is surely knowledgable of His own creations in that light only travels at a certain slow speed (when traveling to earth) according to our observations. But we aren't acknowledging His supernatural design and sovereign power over the universe. If I am wrong please correct me, for I want to know.

The sun is indeed closer and brighter than other stars correct? Why? Because more rays hit earth than from other stars. But what is the rate at which it produces its rays? It produces rays constantly. There is no break for the sun, and nor is there a break for a star. It is always lit up and every .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds (even more frequently of course) it produces another set of rays from every tiny molecule of the star. If God "made" the stars and then "set" them in their places to give "light" to the earth for signs and seasons, perhaps he created them all nearby the earth that the light would reach the earth and then casted them all out away from the earth into their specific places? Or he temporarily allowed the speed of light to be greater then decrease. What do you think?

The people who lean towards YEC simply are misguided in terms of what they perceive as science and evidence. They do not understand the evidence, nor do they understand the basics of the subjects relevant to the debate, therefore they reject it.

Hi Markust17

Markust17 wrote:
I find your interpretation that the sun and stars were created before day one interesting. Genesis 1:1 says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." You spoke that you believe the sun was created before verse 1, but this conflicts with verse 1 itself.

Sorry Markust. I meant to say that I believe the sun was created before the first day. I didn't mean the sun was created before Genesis 1:1. I'm not sure how I let that one slip by. I believe the sun is included in "the heavens", in Genesis 1:1.

markust17 wrote:

You said that Genesis 1:16 is not saying the sun and stars were created on the fourth day of "creation," but that they are now visible. So then what was created on the fourth day? Though you may believe a better translation is "God had made," it is illogical because every day he states that he made something on that specific day (Let there be).

Markust, I'll let you read what Rich Deem says about day 4, from this article on the Home site:http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1). The text then reiterates what God had already done in Genesis 1:1 regarding the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. The time frame describes events over days, seasons, and years - obviously more than 24 hours long.

markust17 wrote:
I am familiar with the scientific understandings that light would take millions and millions of years to reach earth from the stars, and that such a theory conflicts with the young earth idea that the earth is merely 6000 years old. People accepting the science put forth by scientists' conclusions who also trust in God's Word tend to read God's Word and comparing the information. Whereas this is smart, to compare scripture to scientific evidences, it tends to give the mind a different interpretation of God's word in light of the context of scientific discoveries. I myself have looked into much of this and notice one thing throughout much of modern science. It is almost always researched without recognizing the possibility of the supernatural occuring. God is surely knowledgable of His own creations in that light only travels at a certain slow speed (when traveling to earth) according to our observations. But we aren't acknowledging His supernatural design and sovereign power over the universe. If I am wrong please correct me, for I want to know.

Markust, for the sake of this discussion, I'm an Old Earth/Progressive Creationist. I absolutely believe God supernaturally designed the universe, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.

The sun is indeed closer and brighter than other stars correct? Why? Because more rays hit earth than from other stars. But what is the rate at which it produces its rays? It produces rays constantly. There is no break for the sun, and nor is there a break for a star. It is always lit up and every .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds (even more frequently of course) it produces another set of rays from every tiny molecule of the star. If God "made" the stars and then "set" them in their places to give "light" to the earth for signs and seasons, perhaps he created them all nearby the earth that the light would reach the earth and then casted them all out away from the earth into their specific places? What do you think?

Markust, God could have created all the stars nearby the earth, and then cast them away from the earth. But, what we see doesn't back that up. God knows that we as humans want to study His creation. So, for God to do something one way, and let the evidence show a different way, makes God out to be a deceiver. My God is not a deceiver.

Or he temporarily allowed the speed of light to be greater then decrease.

Markust, the speed of light affects much more than what you are suggesting. If the speed of light was significantly faster in the past, the sun would have destroyed the earth. Do a search on nuclear fusion and the speed of light if you want to learn more.