Evidence for God from Science

If you equate age with appearance, then we are in agreement...

Proverbs 2:6

Strix wrote:If you equate age with appearance, then we are in agreement...

When we're talking about God, apparence and reality are synonymous. So we agree.

Just for my own clarity... Yes or no: Do you agree that it's a valid scientific conclusion that the nearby stars are a few million light-years away?

Incidently, you might want to add (without spaces) [ bible ]Proverbs 2:6[ /bible ] to the signature line in your profile.

Felgar wrote: Just for my own clarity... Yes or no: Do you agree that it's a valid scientific conclusion that the nearby stars are a few million light-years away?

Yes... sort of... (Ha!) I think that it is a valid scientific conclusion that the nearby stars are verrrrrry far away. There is a lot of space between here and there, and I don't think we fully understand what is out there that could be influencing the path of those little photons of light we base our calculations on. They could be closer, they could be farther away. Our math is sound enough if our assumptions are correct with respect to spectral shift and what not. I don't really have a problem with someone saying a certain nebula or galaxy is X-amount of light-years away... personally for me, I think it is a little arrogant on our part to say we know for sure (Job38:19). If it follows the scientific pattern, give it a few years and it all will change...


With respect to the signature, I haven't figured out where to do that yet! However, if I put Proverbs 2:6 in my signature, one of these days I'll want to know where that verse is that talks about God giving wisdom and also knowledge and understanding coming from His mouth, and not be able to remember it because I haven't typed it out repetitively... And anyway, there are a whole host of verses that I think are pertinent for closure...

Psalm 119:105

Ok, I was clicking on the wrong Profile link...

This is a test... my signature should be below

Strix wrote:Ok, I was clicking on the wrong Profile link...

This is a test... my signature should be below

The spaces between the brackets deactivates the forum's delineation detection. I only had them in there for demonstration. Check out your sig now; that is what I was suggesting.

If you don't like it, then by all means change it back or take it out altogether.

Strix wrote:Yes... sort of... (Ha!) I think that it is a valid scientific conclusion that the nearby stars are verrrrrry far away. There is a lot of space between here and there, and I don't think we fully understand what is out there that could be influencing the path of those little photons of light we base our calculations on. They could be closer, they could be farther away. Our math is sound enough if our assumptions are correct with respect to spectral shift and what not. I don't really have a problem with someone saying a certain nebula or galaxy is X-amount of light-years away... personally for me, I think it is a little arrogant on our part to say we know for sure (Job38:19). If it follows the scientific pattern, give it a few years and it all will change...

Cool... I think we are very much of like mind.

You are da Man!

Thanks,

I have thought for some time now that God may have created the earth with the appearance of great age as a sort of intellectual exercise for us. Kind of like a problem posed by an instructor.

But that would make it too easy! I say that reconciling evolution with the Bible would be a much more demanding and excercising task.

I just saw a documentary on a search for a genetic "Adam." They did the thing where they didn't let you know untill the end whether their search was for the biblical Adam, or for a symbolic one, or for just a guy along the evolutionary timescale that happened to be the only male in existence at his time for some reason. They tried to confuse the audience with that, and I wasn't amused; how stupid!

They concluded that all people on earth today descended from this one man, who they say lived 60,000 years ago, but that there would've been other men alive at his time. I don't think I trust what they tried to teach me!

Oh, and their Adam came from I think Botswana, not the Fertile Cresent.

People are quite entitled to disagree with my views on creation and maintain their view of a young earth. Strix, it is not my intention to discuss every aspect of the YEC vs. OEC debate within this thread. I desire to keep the topic specific to my first post, for which I still await a reasonable response to by those who take the creation days as being 24-hours each.

To repeat, if God only created in six days, and Earth was created on the first day, then where on Earth was the first sunrise on the first day? If Earth did not exist during the first day, then there is no referential point for the first day to begin. Therefore, without any reference point existing on Earth, it is quite impossible for someone to understand a "day" in Genesis 1 as a literal planetary rotation.

Kurieuo.

Kurieo,

Nice to make your acquaintance. My reading of your other posts and Felgar's comments has risen my anticipation of your return. Thanks for your response.

Kurieuo wrote:Strix, it is not my intention to discuss every aspect of the YEC vs. OEC debate within this thread.

I certainly don't anticipate that type of debate of your stereotypes here. I also do not think that my prevous comments do not bear weight on this discussion or your original post. The foundation for your question is based on science and not the Bible, as evidenced by the examples of Scripture I posted. What you first need to do is provide Scripture that supports your interpretation of the text (2 Peter 1:20-21) and then turn to science to back those passages up.

Kurieuo wrote:To repeat, if God only created in six days, and Earth was created on the first day, then where on Earth was the first sunrise on the first day? If Earth did not exist during the first day, then there is no referential point for the first day to begin. Therefore, without any reference point existing on Earth, it is quite impossible for someone to understand a "day" in Genesis 1 as a literal planetary rotation.

You make the same mistake as many theological evolutionist> An Earth-centric view of Genesis 1. Several comments in your first post amplify this: "The first question a sunrise-to-sunrise (STS) proponent of the days in Genesis needs to answer is when and where dawn arrives on a planet in constant rotation?" and "If we need a reference point on Earth to have a day (i.e., sunrise-to-sunrise), what about the first day?".

I would agree that someone who is a proponent of sunrise-to-sunrise for day one would have a problem. On day one there was simply water, light and dark (which God called day and night). There is no reference to a "sunrise". A sunrise necessarily implies a sun and also a form to the Earth, which at vs. 5 is still "formless and void". They would be assuming an entity and perspective that was not there. Your argument against this ideology, though, seems to understand the space-time continuum to be dependant upon the existence of the Earth. I do not agree that to have a day there necessarily has to be a sunrise. We still have 24-hour periods even without the Earth as a reference point.

.
.
I for one don't hold to Creation days being "24 hr" days.

Einstein probably had it finding time to be relative. Therein lies the basic reason for my belief.
.
.

Strix wrote:Your argument against this ideology, though, seems to understand the space-time continuum to be dependant upon the existence of the Earth. I do not agree that to have a day there necessarily has to be a sunrise. We still have 24-hour periods even without the Earth as a reference point.

Hmmm... That's a really good point.

Strix wrote:I would agree that someone who is a proponent of sunrise-to-sunrise for day one would have a problem. On day one there was simply water, light and dark (which God called day and night). There is no reference to a "sunrise". A sunrise necessarily implies a sun and also a form to the Earth, which at vs. 5 is still "formless and void". They would be assuming an entity and perspective that was not there. Your argument against this ideology, though, seems to understand the space-time continuum to be dependant upon the existence of the Earth. I do not agree that to have a day there necessarily has to be a sunrise. We still have 24-hour periods even without the Earth as a reference point.

Thanks for dealing with my original post as I was actually looking forward way back when I posted it to having a YEC friend tackle it.

Firstly, whether you'd agree or not, I see that your position of each "day" being "24 hours" does not really differ that much from mine in that you believe creation consists of six epochs. The only difference is that you inject 24 hours into the meaning of each epoch, whereas I inject an unspecified period of time within each epoch. Similarly, you also make the same mistake many YECs accuse Day-Age proponents of (if indeed it is a mistake) in that you do not take a "day" as a literal day. For a "day" only has the property of being 24 hours, because the length of an Earth day takes 24 hours to complete. And a property (i.e., 24 hours) of an object (i.e., day) does not mean the property is the object. Without a literal Earth day existing, 24 hours would be void of any meaning related to "day." YEC defenders J. Ligon Duncan III & David W. Hall debating against non-YECs in The Genesis Debate defend the literalness of a day further:

the use of the "evening and morning" formula is a hard brake for those views that propose nonliteral readings. Taking those words as they were intended to be taken leads to only one sound conclusion on the length of the days and repudiates all rivals.

Surely under the scope of Duncan and Hall's argument here against anti-YECs, your own interpretation is also at fault? For what do you make of the "evening and morning" phrase if a literal sunset and sunrise as they believe does not exist?

As for Duncan and Hall (and the general YEC position I am familiar with), they believe that God likely employed a non-solar source of light for first three days before creating the sun on day four. Thus, they still believe Earth existed as they likely see is required by their interpretation of a literal Earth day and the "evening and morning." Yet, as you have observed, "I would agree that someone who is a proponent of sunrise-to-sunrise for day one would have a problem." If a literal day requires Earth's existence to begin, and Earth did not exist when the first literal day of creation began, then yom (i.e., day) can't be interpreted as a literal Earth day because otherwise day one could have never begun.

To summarise my post, your own interpretation appears to break away from the general YEC one I am familiar with. Therefore the argument against YECs in my post at the start of this thread has no real impact upon your own interpretation. I would like to end this by bringing us back to a commonality between your interpretation and mine. Your own position faces the same accusations of non-literalness that many YECs accuse the Day-Age position of. The only difference between your view and mine is that you favour 24 hours rather than an unspecificed period of time for the length of a day. Yet, like me, you still reject "day" as being an actual literal Earth day. Thus, YEC accusations of non-literalness apply to both of our interpretations, however unwarranted I (we?) believe they are.

Kurieuo.

Strix, I don't want to get off-topic away from the specifics of my original post, especially since what I post below has been largely covered in other threads. However, as you were kind enough to produce a respnose to my original post at the beginning of this thread, I provide below a response to some of your own challeges.

Strix wrote:I certainly don't anticipate that type of debate of your stereotypes here. I also do not think that my prevous comments do not bear weight on this discussion or your original post. The foundation for your question is based on science and not the Bible, as evidenced by the examples of Scripture I posted. What you first need to do is provide Scripture that supports your interpretation of the text (2 Peter 1:20-21) and then turn to science to back those passages up.

Actually I'm quote happy to use science, tradition, and Scripture to back up my position. With regards specifically to science, well, the observation of the world around us is just something I'd expect to display truth when understood correctly, and so be in harmony with God's Word when correctly interpreted:

• Romans 1:20—
  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
  
  Psalm 19:1-4—
  1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
  the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
  night after night they display knowledge.
  3 There is no speech or language
  where their voice is not heard.
  4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
  their words to the ends of the world.

As for scripture backing the Day-Age interpretation, I am sure many here who have read through my posts on this board have witnessed plenty of scripture forthcoming from me regarding my position. For starters, you may want to look over the thread entitled Young-Earth Creationism where I provide a scriptural basis for the Day-Age interpretation. Later on in the same thread, I present a fuller summary of scripture which supports why I believe a Young-Earth interpretation is scripturally inadequate compared to the Day-Age:
<blockquote>1. Genesis 2:4 reads, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day (yom) that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens". Firstly I bring your attention to 'generations' - why not have 'days' rather than 'generations' (which implies much longer time) as a summary of God's creation so far? Additionally, this passage also summarises God's whole creation as a "day" (yom). Can you tell me whether one cake can be six cakes? Can 6 days (yom) be one day (yom)?

2. There is no rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days, even when used in a series and so on, must refer to a 24 hour day. Secondly the seventh day is used with yom and an ordinal in Genesis 2:2-3 and we know from other Biblical verses that the seventh day is left open, and so this would break such a rule even if there was one: "For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest [God's rest on the seventh day], lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience." (Hebrews 4:4-11).

3. The figures of speech used in Psalm 90:2-6, Proverbs 8:22-31, Ecclesiastes 1:3-11, and Micah 6:2 all serve to depict for us the immeasurable antiquity of God's presence and plans. Considering phrases in Scripture such as, "Before the mountains were born, or you brought forth the earth and the world," are inspired from God, then it seems to me that such verses are letting us now that the earth has been around for quite some time before humanity—the world. Habakkuk 3:6 directly declares the mountains to be "ancient" and the hills to be "age-old." We constantly see mountains being refered to as ancient, but why is this the case if mankind has been around just as long?

4. Well respected Christian apologist and Biblical inerrantist Norman Geisler summarises several Biblical arguments in his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Some are as follows:<blockquote>i) Hebrews 4 teaches that God is still in that seventh-day cessation from creating described as a day in Genesis 2:2-3. This day, then, is at least 6000 years long.
ii) Gen 1:12 (the third day) the text says, "The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds." Needless to say "the land" (not God) takes more than a day to produce mature vegetation.
iii) The sixth day, considering everything that happened, would appear to be considerably longer than a solar day. It seems highly unlikely all these events could be compressed within a 24 hour period.
- God created all the many thousands of land animals (Gen. 1:24-25)
- God formed man from dust (Gen. 2:7)
- God planted a garden (Gen 2:8), suggests activity involving time
- Adam observed and named all the thousands of animals (Gen. 2:19).
- God promised, "I will make him a helpmeet" (Gen. 2:18), denoting a subsequent time.
- Adam searched for a mate for himself, "But for Adam no suitable helper was found [implying a time of searching]" (Gen. 2:20)
- God put Adam to sleep for a time and operated on him, taking out one of his ribs and healing the flesh (Gen. 2:21)
- Adam indicated he had anticipated Eve for some time (Gen. 2:23).
- Eve was brough to Adam who observed her; accepted her; and was joined to her (Gen. 2:22-25).</blockquote></blockquote>Kurieuo.

If I read the Hebrew of evening and morning in Genesis One what I notice is that evening is mentioned first which would make no sense for the sunrise to sunset argument. I suggest that it was actually the time from sunset to sunrise is closer to what the most literal translation that we have. If you notice in John 11:9 Jesus said that there were 12 hours in a day, not 24.