Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:Deficit of trust in scientific evidence is the problem here.

No, the problem is that you are trying to use scientific evidence to answer what is really a historical question.

A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam immediately after he was created and tried to estimate his age? If he assumed Adam had been born as a baby and grown to adulthood just as his previous patients had his estimate would would be much higher than the actual age. He had all the scientific information necessary to determine Adam's age; he lacked historical information. He didn't know that Adam had been created directly by God rather than conceived in his mothers womb.

Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth lack one vital piece of information. They don't know whether the earth was created by God or whether it came into existence gradually as a result of the physical processes we see going on now. They simply assume that the second possibility is the true one and interpret their findings according to that belief.

The difference between young earth creationists and young earth creationists isn't their beliefs about science but about history. The Bible reveals a historical fact; God created the earth in six days. Young earth creationists believe what the Bible say; old earth creationists deny it. They don't deny it openly but instead say that these weren't literal days which is the same thing as saying that creation didn't happen the way the Bible says it did.

Are we stating that every single species of animal on the WHOLE planet, was on that ark? a male and a female? ( obviously of those that do not require a mate to propagate, only one was needed).
I am curious, was the flood fresh water or salt water by the way?

theophilus wrote:
A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam immediately after he was created and tried to estimate his age? If he assumed Adam had been born as a baby and grown to adulthood just as his previous patients had his estimate would would be much higher than the actual age. He had all the scientific information necessary to determine Adam's age; he lacked historical information. He didn't know that Adam had been created directly by God rather than conceived in his mothers womb.

The problem is that you aren't accounting for other evidence that a scientist would use to determine someone's age. Wrinkles, sun damage, age spots, etc. Adam wouldn't have had any of those age markers, because although he was an adult, he was just created.

The difference between young earth creationists and young earth creationists isn't their beliefs about science but about history. The Bible reveals a historical fact; God created the earth in six days. Young earth creationists believe what the Bible say; old earth creationists deny it. They don't deny it openly but instead say that these weren't literal days which is the same thing as saying that creation didn't happen the way the Bible says it did.

Theophilus,

You have been told again and again, that OEC/PCs do take the bible literally. We do believe it happened the way the bible says. We just interpret the original text differently. Yom has different literal meanings, which has been pointed out to you numerous times before. Yet you keep saying that your YEC interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of this. The next person who says that OECs don't take the bible seriously because their OEC interpretation is different, is getting a vacation from this board.

Theophilus,

You are on an OEC discussion board, and you are pushing your YEC creation view as the only biblical view. That is not going to be tolerated anymore.

Open discussion is fine. Attacking another's creation view as unbiblical, is not going to be tolerated.

I agree Rick, that tactic is getting to be quite old and trying.
People stating that anyone that reads the bible other than the way THEY THINK it MUST be read, don't take the bible seriously or that the bible has no value, have to stop with that silliness immediately.

theophilus wrote:

neo-x wrote:Deficit of trust in scientific evidence is the problem here.

No, the problem is that you are trying to use scientific evidence to answer what is really a historical question.

A physician who has made a complete examination of a person without having been told his age could make an accurate estimate of it because of his knowledge of how the aging process works. But what would happen if he were to travel back in time and examine Adam immediately after he was created and tried to estimate his age? If he assumed Adam had been born as a baby and grown to adulthood just as his previous patients had his estimate would would be much higher than the actual age. He had all the scientific information necessary to determine Adam's age; he lacked historical information. He didn't know that Adam had been created directly by God rather than conceived in his mothers womb.

Scientists who try to discover the age of the earth lack one vital piece of information. They don't know whether the earth was created by God or whether it came into existence gradually as a result of the physical processes we see going on now. They simply assume that the second possibility is the true one and interpret their findings according to that belief.

The difference between young earth creationists and young earth creationists isn't their beliefs about science but about history. The Bible reveals a historical fact; God created the earth in six days. Young earth creationists believe what the Bible say; old earth creationists deny it. They don't deny it openly but instead say that these weren't literal days which is the same thing as saying that creation didn't happen the way the Bible says it did.

And the point you are missing is, that these OEC folks don't say this just to get a kick out of it. WE HAVE EVIDENCE that the earth came to be through gradual processes. Therefore the only valid thing to do is to accept the truth and see how Genesis could mean more than what it says plainly. I do not favor this technique but I don't blame any OEC for that, its hard to go back when you have seen what is true. Therefore the only thing left is to question how we understand the text. And they do it, out of respect for their beliefs and the bible and God.

And I absolutely welcome your faith, I have no issues with YEC folks or beliefs. My own personal opinion is that the Bible is best understood with the YEC framework. But you should drop the holy act, that those who are not yec are not taking their bibles seriously or they should just throw their bibles, or burn their bibles or whatever. That hurts people. You need to realize that. And its wrong because these people do take their faith and bibles seriously.

neo-x wrote:And I absolutely welcome your faith, I have no issues with YEC folks or beliefs. My own personal opinion is that the Bible is best understood with the YEC framework. But you should drop the holy act, that those who are not yec are not taking their bibles seriously or they should just throw their bibles, or burn their bibles or whatever. That hurts people. You need to realize that. And its wrong because these people do take their faith and bibles seriously.

Some take it so seriously that we go back to school and actually study the bible, its history and so forth.
It is quite insulting to have someone suggest that we don't take the bible seriously or it can't have any value simple because we do NOT view it the same way they do.

RickD wrote:Yom has different literal meanings, which has been pointed out to you numerous times before. Yet you keep saying that your YEC interpretation is the only valid interpretation.

I am aware of the fact that yom has several meanings. The context in which it is used shows which meaning applies to a specific use. Each day of creation consisted of a time of light and a time of darkness. Each day consisted of an evening and a morning. Only one meaning of yom fits this context.

Attacking another's creation view as unbiblical, is not going to be tolerated.

In this post you are attacking the YEC position.

There is scientific evidence that isn't compatible with the belief that the earth is old.

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-f ... ung-earth/

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/index.shtml

And there is more scientific evidence to conclude that the earth and universe are very old.

I am aware of the fact that yom has several meanings. The context in which it is used shows which meaning applies to a specific use. Each day of creation consisted of a time of light and a time of darkness. Each day consisted of an evening and a morning. Only one meaning of yom fits this context.

But according to YEC, the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day. So, for at least the first 3 days, according to YEC, there is nothing to mark evening and morning. A day of 24 hours is only a 24 hour day because it takes the earth 24 hours to spin on its axis. And the earth spins on its axis because of inertia from the solar system. And if the sun and moon weren't created until the 4th day, the earth had no reason to be spinning.

In this post you are attacking the YEC position.

It's the way you're posting that is inappropriate. If you can't see it, then keep posting as you are. You will be banned. We are not going to tolerate attacks on other members because of their creation stance. As believers on this site, we are free to believe whatever creation stance we want.

No more personal attacks against people holding a different creation stance. And that includes people saying that someone doesn't take scripture seriously, because they hold to an old earth.

So theophilus,

Saying that OECs deny scripture is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated. Maybe someday despite your narrowminded dogmatism on this subject, you'll understand that believers are free to disagree on non essential things such as creation stances. Just because believers don't agree with you on something that has absolutely no bearing on salvation, that doesn't mean they/we deny scripture.

PaulSacramento wrote:Are we stating that every single species of animal on the WHOLE planet, was on that ark? a male and a female? ( obviously of those that do not require a mate to propagate, only one was needed).
I am curious, was the flood fresh water or salt water by the way?

As I see it, most salt in the oceans is from land runoff, so at that time, it was probably much less salty than today. As for fresh and saltwater fish , either could live in fresh water for a time, especially if the oceans did not become so salty for another millennia or two.

RickD wrote: But according to YEC, the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day. So, for at least the first 3 days, according to YEC, there is nothing to mark evening and morning. A day of 24 hours is only a 24 hour day because it takes the earth 24 hours to spin on its axis. And the earth spins on its axis because of inertia from the solar system. And if the sun and moon weren't created until the 4th day, the earth had no reason to be spinning.

A day is 24 hours long because that is how it was created. There needs to be no other reason, and there is no good reason to doubt it.

Genesis 1
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

See a pattern here? I don't think it can be more specific if it said 24 hours.

Starhunter wrote:The "anchor stones"...

Who put those crosses on them? Christian admirers? Pagans?

I don't think Noah's family did. They are Pagan symbols regardless of who put them there.

Why are the stones scattered over an area? Did the ropes fail?

Nothing of the ark failed until it rested.

The hole in the top of the stones was not drilled by conventional methods. One narrow end of the hole is the result of the method used to 'cut,' it is not deliberate.

There'll be other stones in this area where the hole is blown open with no 'handle' and there will be similar stones all out of shape with seething marks on one side. And still other stones will have a number the same sized holes, some only creating a dent, and not piercing through.

The sign that is supposed to be the tower of Babel is not that. Might say what another time.

However, these stones are Chaldean, whose users traveled all over the old world, using these stones in another state of matter to perform what they needed.

Similar stones are found in South America, China and Celtic lands, just to mention a couple. A lot of anchors!

Byzantine Christians carved the oldest crosses on them; one for each member of Noah's family. If you look at the top of the page listed, you see one anchor stone of the size normally used by boats. The ark stones are several times larger and many times heavier.

Nothing failed on the ark, but as the water became shallower, they no longer needed the anchors. As they would start to drag bottom, either the top of the anchor or the rope would break. The ropes may have been two or three different lengths, so that small groups of them would drag and break off rather than all hitting bottom at once. Another article says that 4 were found on the mountain where the ark rested.

As I see it, most salt in the oceans is from land runoff, so at that time, it was probably much less salty than today. As for fresh and saltwater fish , either could live in fresh water for a time, especially if the oceans did not become so salty for another millennia or two.

I think you missed the point. Water-dwelling creatures require certain conditions as far as salt level, temperature, water pressure, pH, etc. that vary immensely depending on the species and where it has evolved to live. You couldn't just take every type of water animal and plant, put them in a massive body of water with the same conditions throughout, and expect them all to survive for a couple months without any trouble.

And even if every animal at the time of the flood was made to live in freshwater conditions, you have the problem of explaining how everything living in the oceans suddenly changed to being able to survive in salt water. If the oceans went from freshwater a few thousand years ago to quickly becoming extremely salty today, how did the species of water-dwelling organisms all simultaneously rapidly evolve to become saltwater creatures, instead of simply dying off due to the huge change in their environment?

pat34lee wrote:

Starhunter wrote:The "anchor stones"...

Who put...
Similar stones are found in South America, China and Celtic lands, just to mention a couple. A lot of anchors!

Byzantine Christians carved the oldest crosses on them; one for each member of Noah's family. If you look at the top of the page listed, you see one anchor stone of the size normally used by boats. The ark stones are several times larger and many times heavier.

Nothing failed on the ark, but as the water became shallower, they no longer needed the anchors. As they would start to drag bottom, either the top of the anchor or the rope would break. The ropes may have been two or three different lengths, so that small groups of them would drag and break off rather than all hitting bottom at once. Another article says that 4 were found on the mountain where the ark rested.

Yes, one look at the picture, tells the whole concept, the anchors would have been scattered.

Did you notice the shape of the object on top of what was supposed to have been the tower of Babel?

Is it not the anchor stone side on? And which way up is it? Is the hole at the top or bottom? Can't really tell?

This picture of 'Babel' is also found in North American native drawings, who say that their ancestors used them to travel.

Nevertheless, I do believe in the flood account, 100 %

By the way, those are byzantine crosses, also Celtic, and Babylonian. The Catholic church incorporated Paganism, hence it changed God's law re idol worship and deleted it. Daniel 7:25.