Evidence for God from Science

Silvertusk wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:A rather interesting look at the "six-days" of Creation, explained to us knuckle-dragging types:
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/12740 ... =slideshow

Found it from this testimony: http://sixdayscience.com/2015/05/11/my-testimony/

Thoughts?

Fascinating - but the only problem I have with it is that man appears 250 millions years ago according to his chart - and modern man did not appear until about 100,000-200,000 years ago.

Actually, what it states is the events of the 6th day of Genesis started about 230 million years ( taking into account acceleration).
What are those events?

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

What we have happening 230 million years ago is beginning of animal and mammal life, the beasts and such that roam on land ( earth) and it ( the creative process) ended with the coming of man and man being made in His Image.

SoCalExile wrote:A rather interesting look at the "six-days" of Creation, explained to us knuckle-dragging types:
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/12740 ... =slideshow

Found it from this testimony: http://sixdayscience.com/2015/05/11/my-testimony/

Thoughts?

Great rind indeed. Than you for sharing.

Now I browse through Sarah Salviander website.

Audie, I don't think the slideshow was saying modern humans developed then. Hominids, maybe; but I think the author was using established prehistoric eras as a guideline for the "days".

Also, she does seem to support a Gap Theory/global calamity on the 6th day.

SoCalExile wrote:Audie, I don't think the slideshow was saying modern humans developed then. Hominids, maybe; but I think the author was using established prehistoric eras as a guideline for the "days".

Also, she does seem to support a Gap Theory/global calamity on the 6th day.

There were no mammals, birds, lizards or snakes, crocodiles, or turtles
that long ago.

There is no "gap theory". There isnt even a hypothesis. Gap guess, maybe, as thoroughly discredited
as, say, phlogiston, alchemy and astrology.

There have been a number of global calamities, separated by tens of millions of years.
The ice ages might be considered a calamity. Asteroid impact and large scale vulcanism,
are others. World wide flood? Not one of them.

What makes you think the calamity was a flood? Noah's day was the 7th day technically.

It could have been the asteroid impact.

There is debate whether Noah's flood was global or local. I say the latter.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:A rather interesting look at the "six-days" of Creation, explained to us knuckle-dragging types:
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/12740 ... =slideshow

Found it from this testimony: http://sixdayscience.com/2015/05/11/my-testimony/

Thoughts?

Fascinating - but the only problem I have with it is that man appears 250 millions years ago according to his chart - and modern man did not appear until about 100,000-200,000 years ago.

You know, if someone were to find human remains in the Permian, the "problem' is, we'd have to abandon the theory of evolution.

It's not like not finding them there proves the theory of evolution -- however you define it -- which I don't believe you ever have.

Good flipping grief, K, what are you on about? I nor anyone proposes to "PROVE" a theory. Why should I write a definition of ToE? You can look it up faster than I can write.

I pointed out that a gross inconsistency like humans living 250,000,000 years ago would disprove a theory that says they could ONLY have evolved about 250,000,000 years later.

I thought maybe someone would notice that such a gross error might similarly affect the creation myth under discusison.

But again you make it about me. Sheesh.

People use it differently.
ToE means nothing, no more than evolution, and we all accept common evolutionary thoughts.
And that includes YECs with their animal kinds and rapid speciation post-flood.

So "evolutoin", "theory of evolution" or "ToE" (theories?) -- often used as though it has magical meaning everyone understands.
In particular something over and against those who believe in creation. You introduced a strange challenge that finding humans in Permain would disprove evolution.
Why do we care? I don't get it. Terms are often quite important, so I'd like to know what you mean because you use it often.

It is me-like to go off on tangents, but it's an important one I think.
And it occurred to me that I've asked a few times in the past and never got a real response that I can remember.

Here are some definitions I ages ago use to always refer people regarding such: http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/Meanings2000.pdf

A rather interesting look at the "six-days" of Creation, explained to us knuckle-dragging types:
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/12740 ... =slideshow

Found it from this testimony: http://sixdayscience.com/2015/05/11/my-testimony/

Thoughts?[/quote]






But again you make it about me. Sheesh.[/quote]
People use it differently.
ToE means nothing, no more than evolution, and we all accept common evolutionary thoughts.
And that includes YECs with their animal kinds and rapid speciation post-flood.

So "evolutoin", "theory of evolution" or "ToE" (theories?) -- often used as though it has magical meaning everyone understands.
In particular something over and against those who believe in creation. You introduced a strange challenge that finding humans in Permain would disprove evolution.
Why do we care? I don't get it. Terms are often quite important, so I'd like to know what you mean because you use it often.

It is me-like to go off on tangents, but it's an important one I think.
And it occurred to me that I've asked a few times in the past and never got a real response that I can remember.

Here are some definitions I ages ago use to always refer people regarding such: http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/Meanings2000.pdf[/quote][/quote][/quote]

There is the theory of evolution, and there are the endless strawman / misrepresentation / misunderstandings that represent
creationist takes on it. In another thread today we see a q, "is it evolution if the fish is still a fish.
Representative of the average understanding..probably on both sides.

I never saw a "creogument" (my word) that is reflective of understanding or accurate info.

If it would be of no interest to you if ToE were disproved by Permian humans, then I guess not.
The greatest scientific revolution, ever, to date, many would not be so blase.

Sorry about the messy quote too many quotes and too hard to fix on this phone.

I've got to confess that I mostly reject evolution because of a book written by an atheist.the book is called "A case of stating the obvious" and Dereck Hough is an atheist,who accepts evolution but realizes the problems with evolution and he wrote a book about it,but was ignored because of evolution dogma but from his book he explains how the evidence is only stating the obvious and that is either reproduction or adaptation.I went and looked at the evidence myself and realized he was right and people like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne were wrong.

I kind of see Derrick Hough like Rupert Sheldrake except Rupert Sheldrake believes in God and Derick Hough doesn't but both accept evolution but understand the human genome project was not friendly to evolution,but was ignored but they have both tried to help evolution and steer it in another direction and both were ignored.

SoCal wrote:
All this time, YEC and OEC were both right.

as it turns out, neither is correct or scientifically plausible. YEC because the belief of the actual creation of the universe was 5-7000 years ago of our world's natural view of time, not the cosmological quark diffusion to actual matter time related creation, that took place. OEC because life was not immediately created on an old earth, God's allowance for certain processes like gene mutation or natural selection nor finally a plan by God to cleverly design a universe (everything there is )through natural evolution.

Genesis 1 is in fact the most remarkable (stand alone) scientific document ever written. You must go to Sarah Salviander's web site, SixDay Science and read her stuff.
For me, it's all new and more exciting news that I can hardly stand. this site is listed by SoCal's original post.

Prepare to be amazed if you have not already found this info and are reading it for the first time.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

SoCal wrote:
All this time, YEC and OEC were both right.

as it turns out, neither is correct or scientifically plausible. YEC because the belief of the actual creation of the universe was 5-7000 years ago of our world's natural view of time, not the cosmological quark diffusion to actual matter time related creation, that took place. OEC because life was not immediately created on an old earth, God's allowance for certain processes like gene mutation or natural selection nor finally a plan by God to cleverly design a universe (everything there is )through natural evolution.

Genesis 1 is in fact the most remarkable (stand alone) scientific document ever written. You must go to Sarah Salviander's web site, SixDay Science and read her stuff.
For me, it's all new and more exciting news that I can hardly stand. this site is listed by SoCal's original post.

Prepare to be amazed if you have not already found this info and are reading it for the first time.

This is why my mind is never really made up because I know over time more of God's word is going to be revealed true.I am not so dogmatic about my interpretation and am always willing to let God be true and ever man a liar.I go where the evidence leads also and am willing to change if what is revealed conflicts with my interpretation.I do not believe nature will contradict God's word and if it does? We might need to question our interpretation.

In the past we can look back on things the church believed because of their interpretation and now see that it was their interpretation that was wrong.We should learn from our Christian forefathers and be willing to let God's word be revealed in God's own time.

Now,having said this? It is still important to pick out the good info from the bad info as people can be mostly right but still be wrong,here or there and so it is important to not just accept everything but to mull it over,think about it,look for evidence,pray about it,etc before we accept everything.I find myself getting information from many different theories and viewpoints and kind of combining it all into one.Nobody has a 100% authority on their interpretation of the bible and how everything fits into it.

I think this is very well said able. It seems that if you're not on your toes your put on your heels.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 and I think the only way to do this is to sift the wheat from the chaff over time, as you said.

I am really enjoying this new site. The info here is backed up by science and more so by the hand in glove fit with science and scripture. It makes me feel like those guys back then were a lot smarter than I ever gave them credit for. I think this speaks to their closeness to God and perhaps should be a lesson to us if we want to discern better His scriptural thoughts and plans. Truly, His ways are above ours in all regards.

SoCalExile wrote:What makes you think the calamity was a flood? Noah's day was the 7th day technically.

It could have been the asteroid impact.

There is debate whether Noah's flood was global or local. I say the latter.

If this is addressed to me, I specifically said that there have been a number of "calamities", broadly defined, but none of them were a world wide flood.

Note if you would the polar ice that is over a hundred thousand years old. Ice floats.

EssentialSacrifice wrote:I think this is very well said able. It seems that if you're not on your toes your put on your heels.

s.

Well said, yes. Now, he needs to actually apply it.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:People use it differently.
ToE means nothing, no more than evolution, and we all accept common evolutionary thoughts.
And that includes YECs with their animal kinds and rapid speciation post-flood.

So "evolutoin", "theory of evolution" or "ToE" (theories?) -- often used as though it has magical meaning everyone understands.
In particular something over and against those who believe in creation. You introduced a strange challenge that finding humans in Permain would disprove evolution.
Why do we care? I don't get it. Terms are often quite important, so I'd like to know what you mean because you use it often.

It is me-like to go off on tangents, but it's an important one I think.
And it occurred to me that I've asked a few times in the past and never got a real response that I can remember.

Here are some definitions I ages ago use to always refer people regarding such: http://www.jodkowski.pl/ke/Meanings2000.pdf

There is the theory of evolution, and there are the endless strawman / misrepresentation / misunderstandings that represent
creationist takes on it. In another thread today we see a q, "is it evolution if the fish is still a fish.
Representative of the average understanding..probably on both sides.

I never saw a "creogument" (my word) that is reflective of understanding or accurate info.

If it would be of no interest to you if ToE were disproved by Permian humans, then I guess not.
The greatest scientific revolution, ever, to date, many would not be so blase.

So you don't want to define it then, because you think you'll show what?
Maybe you won't define it perfectly accurate enough and look to hold to a strawman / misrepresentation /misunderstanding?

I disagree "creationist" all have strawman or misrepresentations.
That seems like a rather bold assertion coming from a deep anti-creationist emotive response.

You never saw a "creogument" -- there you go again making it a matter of attack on evolution.
Why should a "creo" care to attack it? The opposite of "evolution" isn't creation is it?
This reveals perhaps a misunderstanding on your part.

For example, what of those creationists who believe in evolution.
Only your Ath-evolutionists don't want a bar of it.
So you're colours shown here is not "evolution" per se but secularism.

Atheists misrepresent evolution perhaps more-so in my experience than creationists.
Attaching their philosophical nonsense to it and making science a matter to the exclusion of God.

There is no reason for this, especially given modern science found fertile grounds in Christianity.
And the educational institutions which birthed bright scientific minds.

So, sorry, but I don't buy into your pretense one bit. Pleeease.