Evidence for God from Science

tjdagger wrote:To abelcainsbrother ,

you wrote,

"No Gap theorist rejects Noah's flood at all we just don't make all of the evidence in this earth be evidence for Noah's flood like YEC's do.If there was a former world on this earth that perished then the kind of evidence scientists have made fit into evolution back up and confirm a former world existing,NOT evolution.Rememer everything in the earth is looked at and examined as if life evolves when not one scientists can prove or demonstrate life evolves.If you don't know about or understand the Old earth Gap theory then you should look into it before you reject it as it is not well known about today but at one time before Charles Darwin it was taught in Christian churches as the truth.Also the Egyptian teaching in the article above if it is true would effect Young earth creationism not the Gap theory."

I am fully appreciative of the fact that science has dismissed the notion of a God and therefore does not focus or spend resources on investigating issues of God, the soul or spirit and "things unseen". I am also fully aware that science owes it's "scientific method" of investigation to early God fearing scientists who rationalized that a God of rule, authority, rational and order should be able to be reliably and repeatedly demonstrated through experimentation.

I was once a proponent of a variation of the Gap theory. Some of the problems for me personally are....

1. Gods Eternal plan is to create a people for himself so that he should not be alone. Such an "eternal plan" along with the creation account as written do not allude to the need or will to create a prototype, lost, a different people or forgotten world.
1. The bible says the "evening and the morning" where the first day. Some claim the time frame isn't clear, how much clearer could it be?
3. Death and suffering must be placed before the fall. God repeatedly declares that it is very God at the conclusion of each day. Death and suffering do not fit such a declaration when the "last' enemy is described as being death.
4. God molded man from the earth and breathed life into his nostrils and he became a living soul. Backed up by Jesus's statement that "in the beginning God created them male and female"." Beginning", not after the first world passed away, or any other point beyond the Beginning. The beginning being the creation of the Heavens and the earth. The very first act being the form, the formless God creates for himself Colossians 1:15.

If I cannot trust the Bible from the very first page, how can I trust any of it... let alone a variety of man's teachings that cast doubt on the fundamental concept of "mans fall" bringing death into existence, requiring a "kinsman redeemer" to fix the problem so that "man" and "all of creation" may be restored for all eternity as a people for God.

To say that the world is first restored to make way for mankind fly's in the face of what is written, removing man's creation from the beginning, calls Jesus a liar and ignores Gods eternal plan to create a people for himself and the purpose of the earth, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 45:18, Psalm 115:16.

I am also aware that this is merely my interpretation.

Audie wrote:How does a hundred thousand years' accumulation of ice in Antarctica mesh with a world wide flood 4 or 5 thousand yesrs ago ?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:How does a hundred thousand years' accumulation of ice in Antarctica mesh with a world wide flood 4 or 5 thousand yesrs ago ?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 080804.htm

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cont ... 9.abstract

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:How does a hundred thousand years' accumulation of ice in Antarctica mesh with a world wide flood 4 or 5 thousand yesrs ago ?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 080804.htm

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cont ... 9.abstract

http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword04i.htm

The last one addresses sea floor dust....nobody finds "flood"
debris of course.

So how does a flood fit in with 100,000 years of ice?

"Thanks for your reply but these kinds of so-called problems for the Gap theory that you have alluded to have been refuted by Gap theorists who are saved,born again Christians and you didn't even address this issue of the article above,do you just ignore it and believe in the YEC interpretation anyway?"

You also fail to see the evidence in the earth that proves forensically that a former world full of life existed.

tjdagger wrote:To abelcainsbrother,

"Thanks for your reply but these kinds of so-called problems for the Gap theory that you have alluded to have been refuted by Gap theorists who are saved,born again Christians and you didn't even address this issue of the article above,do you just ignore it and believe in the YEC interpretation anyway?"

Which article? The one that asserts that Moses was out to debunk Egyptian creation myths or the one that debunks Ancient Aliens?

I am a Born Again Christian as of the 8th may 2014. I had, what I can only describe as a profound, overwhelming spiritual experience in which my salvation was revealed to me.
Being born again does not mean infallible. I only have my own God given ability to determine and rationalize the world around me.
Do you really offer me that the problems I pointed to, simply disappear because someone other than yourself says they do?
Do you not answer for yourself?
I answer for me, and me only.
If I where to stand before God and say the line quoted above, pointing to some info that didn't come from God or my own gift of reason and ability to rationalize and said I trusted not you God, not myself, but these other born again christian to rationalize for me. How would I fair?

I believe what I interpret the Bible to literately say whilst factoring in things reasonable for consideration. If my view reflects the YEC view, then so be it. I am very wary of any theory or belief that the Bible does not support and or requires additions by man. I must therefore trust in my own rationalization and the spirit/will of God to guide me. If I cannot trust God or my self... then who... you?

You also fail to see the evidence in the earth that proves forensically that a former world full of life existed.

An assumption for sure, tell me? How many of these evidences have you held in your hand, seen with your eye or tested beyond doubt? Otherwise you only take the word of whoever says such things to be true. I certainly see evidence of a world prior to Noah's Flood. But how could a "formless and void" pre-adam earth yield evidence?

OK imagine a former world full of life existing and then when Lucifer and a third of the angels rebel against God judgment is poured out and the heavens and earth are greatly damaged so that all of the life that existed on the earth perished and went extinct.The evidence would be in the earth when it was without form and void and everything God does after verse 2 to restore it would not change that the fossils,etc evidence of a former world are in the layers of strata from the former world that existed and still is today.

If you have questions I would be more than glad to answer you but I'm not sure this is the thread to do it.You can find a thread I started about the Gap theory on here in the creation section and I encourage you to ask any question you want to about the Gap theory on it.

tjdagger wrote:To abelcainsbrother,

OK imagine a former world full of life existing and then when Lucifer and a third of the angels rebel against God judgment is poured out and the heavens and earth are greatly damaged so that all of the life that existed on the earth perished and went extinct.The evidence would be in the earth when it was without form and void and everything God does after verse 2 to restore it would not change that the fossils,etc evidence of a former world are in the layers of strata from the former world that existed and still is today.

I was lead to believe "void" meant "completely empty". Do I misunderstand?

The problem is that your Gap requires me to use my imagination for it to work and is not based on anything that points to it with any certainty. I can imagine all sorts of things, I'm somewhat creative, being made in my creators image and all. However, I looked at the creation thread you suggested. Read through various posts of interest and re-reviewed 2nd Peter 3:3-7 , Jeremiah 4:23-28 , Isaiah 14:17 , Ezekiel 28:11-13 and Jeremiah 4:23–28 ... all you've claimed to support the Gap theory.

It is safe to say that I don't see it the way you do. I still maintain a belief in the trustworthiness of the Bible as Gods revealed word. I make no apology, just that we disagree.

If you have questions I would be more than glad to answer you but I'm not sure this is the thread to do it.You can find a thread I started about the Gap theory on here in the creation section and I encourage you to ask any question you want to about the Gap theory on it.

I did ask questions... many of them. To say this is not the thread to answer is separate and compartmentalize issues. Would you cease a conversation mid way through because the topic changed focus, in order to move to a new location to continue discussion in any other facet of life?

If you would like me to elaborate or give my interpretation on the verses above, I'd be happy to, otherwise I see your conviction and it is not my place to tell you or anybody else they are wrong. So for now I will hold my thoughts.

Peace and God bless you.

Starhunter wrote:The thread question is about the purpose of the Genesis account whether it be scientific or theological.

There is no distinction between who God is (theological- the study of God) and what God does (scientific - the study of what has been created).

The terms theological and scientific are a way of separating and compartmentalizing subjects considered by inferiors to be incompatible. Theological studies can be dubious, and scientific conclusions false, and yet both of these fields provide valuable studies of the natural world which God created, which in turn was designed by God to teach valuable lessons about who He is.

The separation of God from creation, or theology from science, is a deed done by us and not the Bible where the two are inseparable.

But modern science cannot see any science in Genesis, and neither can theologians see the science of God's creation from His character, hence the segregation of the subjects.

True science, not false science, marries the character and love of God with His creation and natural studies, and sees harmony in the order of natural things which are overruled by spiritual principles of existence.

So the purpose of the Genesis account is neither theological or scientific, but just to provide the facts.

Philip wrote:Genesis Creation Accounts' Purpose: Science or Theology?