Evidence for God from Science

If a loving God intended animals to suffer injury and die, why did he give them the ability to feel it, just like us? Does he long for something to torture? If God did not allow us to die, instead only allowed us to suffer, as your arguement here and on your site seems to imply, doesn't that imply putting us through total hell? Would you want to live forever in a world of suffering?

Black Phoenix wrote:If a loving God intended animals to suffer injury and die, why did he give them the ability to feel it, just like us? Does he long for something to torture? If God did not allow us to die, instead only allowed us to suffer, as your arguement here and on your site seems to imply, doesn't that imply putting us through total hell? Would you want to live forever in a world of suffering?

If you were able to create life, would you create a life as a robot...doing and feeling (or not feeling) everything you dictate it feels and does or would you rather create something that has it's own thoughts and it's own will.

Without feeling (pain or pleasure), there is no concept of right and wrong.

For example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/01/pa ... index.html

Read that story and ask yourself why feeling is so important? Why would a mother WANT her child to feel pain??
.
.

I think its a little strange that we are arguing about how God created the universe and all the small details. Science in my opinion doens't conflict with the Bible, but again getting caught up with all the details and trying to understand the truth that only God knows will do nothing but separate us. I love Rich's site cause its not so much a tool to proof the existence of God, but rather i use it to fight the atheist views by rendering their arguments questionable or blatantly false. Science and how it links to the Bible is also great in helping lead agnostics and possible some open minded atheists toward Jesus because thats what matters. Christianity is loosing its hold on the world mainly because science, biology in particular, tries to prove existence without God and fails. Yet it hides this failure in fancy talk and so called empirical proof that pushes many people away from Christianity and is beginning to divide Christians themselves. This is probably the greatest tool of Satan, I feel Biology in the way that biologists have approached it has become nothing more then propoganda for or an attempt at proving the atheist cause. We can't let this mirage lead us toward a deistic view, so regardless of young or old earth views, we as devout Christians need to stick together for the Anti-Christ(a 2nd Judas?) is coming.

Interesting comments here guys. I thought about starting a new thread but decided to post here instead.

I like neither YEC or OEC. YEC seems too skeptical of legimate science, to a fault really. We have ample evidence that the stars are billions of light years away, and that the bodies in our solar system are about 4 Billion years old. YEC either discounts this evidence as invalid against ever-failing odds or has (in my view) much too complicated theories to explain them.

On the other hand, I see OEC as too quick to placate science; and science that is questionable at that. If science were as sure about evolution and the Big Bang as it were about the Earth being round and about the Earth moving around the Sun then I might swing to OEC; but for now I don't like the idea of shifting a simple interpretation of the scripture for apparently no great reason.

Rather, I espouse to what might be called the 'Appearance of Age' theory of creation. The title is somewhat misleading though. I believe that in 6 literal days, God created an Earth that is 4 Billion years old. He created a Universe that is ~20 Billion years old. Here's the logic:

Science is the discovery of our physical world - of the universe that God created. Along with existing matter, there are universal rules by which this universe is governed. Speed of light, gravity, inertia, etc. The universe is ordered and predictable in many respects. God created the rules along with the universe. So it's my contention that God created the Earth already old, as if it had existed 4 Billion years. So YEC's are not wrong in claiming the Earth is ~10,000 years old - indeed it has only existed for this time period. But science and EOC's are not wrong in conlcuding that Earth is 4 Billion years old, because by all physical realities it is. For what it's worth I also espouse to the 'light on the way' theory along the same lines. In order for the Earth and Universe to be habitable, God had to create it mid-motion. And He's certainly powerful enough to do so.

I feel that the biblical evidence for this is pretty strong. First note that this approach brings perfect harmony to our scientific conclusions and simple interpretations of the Bible - and this is key for me. Second, note that God created Adam and Eve already old - why not the Universe too? The sun was already in full light-producing mode when He spoke it into existance - it's not like it had to collapse from a Red Giant into our current sun. The plants seem to have been created as grown plants - God didn't go around planting seeds everywhere. Animals too, started their existance in a mature state ready to survive in the world.

What dya think?

My two cents on this young/old earth topic.

A man breaks his arm. He goes to the hospital to have it checked out. The doctor takes an x-ray image and after verifying the location and severity of the broken bone, places a cast arround the man's arm.

The man goes home that night. God miraculously heals the man's arm (like Jesus' miracles for example). Ater being healed the man goes to the hospital to have the cast removed. The doctor who placed the cast is not there. Another doctor, then, is assigned the task of taking care of this patient. So he takes an x-ray of the man's healed arm. He compares both x-rays, the one before the healing and the one after the healing, and judges that this man broke his arm 6 months ago, because that is how long it would take the bone to heal. But infact we know the man broke it yesterday.

Did God decieve the doctor by healing the arm? No, he just performed a miracle. Then, would God be decieving us if the earth was 10,000 years old instead of 4 billion. No!, its just a miracle. Science therefore isn't wrong in what it's doing, just like the doctor isn't wrong in making that judgement on the age of the injury. However, he is mistaken. The same then applies, as far as science is concerned, the earth is 4 billion years old. As far as truth is concerned the earth is arround 10,000 years old.

The argument for a biblical old earth cannot be made without the backing evidence of science. Granted, we should take what we know (from other scripture, or science, or personal experience) and use it to illuminate some parts of scripture that are not so clear, but when you start from what you know from science and then try to find it in scripture, that becomes a problem.

(lol, i wrote the above text before reading felgar's post!! amazing how similar they are).
So Felgar I agree. I think we've got it. I don't know about the light on the way thing. I rather not even try to think how (for more then just fun). Just like we never think how Jesus could have healed the blind man. We don't try to find scientific explanations for it because its beyond us. It's a miracle

Absolutely markoueis! In this understanding we are kindred spirits.

Felgar wrote: I feel that the biblical evidence for this is pretty strong. First note that this approach brings perfect harmony to our scientific conclusions and simple interpretations of the Bible - and this is key for me. Second, note that God created Adam and Eve already old - why not the Universe too? The sun was already in full light-producing mode when He spoke it into existance - it's not like it had to collapse from a Red Giant into our current sun. The plants seem to have been created as grown plants - God didn't go around planting seeds everywhere. Animals too, started their existance in a mature state ready to survive in the world.

What dya think?

Actually, you're wrong.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

I believe these verses clearly state God did not simply pop everything into existance as adults, but rather God planted the "seeds" and made sure they would develop as needed. There is no mention that God speeded up the process in any way, further showing that the original 7 days of Genesis were not 24 hour days. While God could have created everything with the appearance of age, it is not supported by the Bible.

Mastermind wrote: Actually, you're wrong.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

I believe these verses clearly state God did not simply pop everything into existance as adults, but rather God planted the "seeds" and made sure they would develop as needed. There is no mention that God speeded up the process in any way, further showing that the original 7 days of Genesis were not 24 hour days. While God could have created everything with the appearance of age, it is not supported by the Bible.

I don't agree with your first statement that "these verses clearly state God did not simply pop everythign into existance as adults."

Sure, the Earth will sprout vegetation, as a rule for how plants live. But supposing you're right and ALL vegetation grew from a seed, did not the seed "pop" into existance? Is not the seed itself sufficiently old to enable it to grow? An under-developed seed will not grow (break open some green wheat or barely next time you get a chance)... See, whether the trees 'popped' into existance or the seeds did, at some point there was something that popped into existance, and it was un-naturally aged. No matter what version of creation you extole, you must agree with that. So my question to you, is why would God pop a mature seed into existance but not just a tree - why would He go half way?

The birds were also flying immediately - how do you feel that this supports that they did NOT come into existance as adults?

And finally there's the account of Adam and Eve - clearly formed as an adults capable of walking and talking. And EVEN if you argue Adam could have grown, it is clear that by the time God made Eve, Adam was an adult and God made a suitable companion for him - cleary not a child.

While I can't rule your long-day creation out, I must reitterate: There's not a good enough reason to abandon the obvious literal interpretation of scripture... You are basically redefining the meaning of the Bible to better reconcile with science, and esspecially given the very unrpoven nature of this area of science, I don't feel that it's a wise choice to do so. Too me, doing so would be a concession that our human wisdom is more trustworthy than the Word of God... And as such to me, that is folly.

Felgar wrote: I don't agree with your first statement that "these verses clearly state God did not simply pop everythign into existance as adults."

Sure, the Earth will sprout vegetation, as a rule for how plants live. But supposing you're right and ALL vegetation grew from a seed, did not the seed "pop" into existance? Is not the seed itself sufficiently old to enable it to grow? An under-developed seed will not grow (break open some green wheat or barely next time you get a chance)... See, whether the trees 'popped' into existance or the seeds did, at some point there was something that popped into existance, and it was un-naturally aged. No matter what version of creation you extole, you must agree with that. So my question to you, is why would God pop a mature seed into existance but not just a tree - why would He go half way?

The birds were also flying immediately - how do you feel that this supports that they did NOT come into existance as adults?

And finally there's the account of Adam and Eve - clearly formed as an adults capable of walking and talking. And EVEN if you argue Adam could have grown, it is clear that by the time God made Eve, Adam was an adult and God made a suitable companion for him - cleary not a child.

While I can't rule your long-day creation out, I must reitterate: There's not a good enough reason to abandon the obvious literal interpretation of scripture... You are basically redefining the meaning of the Bible to better reconcile with science, and esspecially given the very unrpoven nature of this area of science, I don't feel that it's a wise choice to do so. Too me, doing so would be a concession that our human wisdom is more trustworthy than the Word of God... And as such to me, that is folly.

Again, I must disagree. It does not state that even the seed popped into existance. In fact, Adam DID NOT pop into existance. God made his shape out of dirt, in His own image, and gave life to him by breathing into him. Just the same, God might have made parts of the Earth turn into seeds which in turn developed (as seems to be the case) into grown plants. In fact, after the universe is created, God doesn't actually pop anything into existance, but merely transforms unliving matter into living matter. If God would have popped them into existance, He would have said so. In addition, why would God try to make the universe look older than it actually is? He repeatedly asks us to look at the heavens for answers, as well as asks us to test everything. Why would He want us to test everything if the tests will give us wrong answers?

Mastermind wrote:In addition, why would God try to make the universe look older than it actually is?

Because it IS that old. It was made old just like Adam.

P.S. I never said Adam popped into existance, I said he was formed as an adult.

Oh well, we disagree and I'm prepared to leave it at that. We'll find out the truth in due time.

If it was made 10 thousand years ago, then it is 10 thousand years old. if it looks older than that, it doesn't actually make it older. And it would still be decieving if God made it this way. I'm just curious, why do you insist that the english word day has to mean a 24 hour day? It does have 3 translations in the old hebrew after all.

Mastermind wrote:If it was made 10 thousand years ago, then it is 10 thousand years old. if it looks older than that, it doesn't actually make it older. And it would still be decieving if God made it this way. I'm just curious, why do you insist that the english word day has to mean a 24 hour day? It does have 3 translations in the old hebrew after all.

It it didn't repeat "there was evening and morning" on each day then I'd be more inclined to agree that a different interpretation is plausible. But how else would an author indicate a literal Earth day, besides saying that there was evening an morning?

Were the time period an age, I wouldn't expect mention of evening and morning - other language would be more obvious. We don't seem to have confusion with all the other time periods mentioned in the Bible, like how long Isreal wandered in the desert, and how old the early characters lived to... Clearly (to me) the author was capable of indicating time accurately, and by saying "evening and morning on the first day" I feel that he has.

1:14 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;


Why would the author mention the actual days separated by the lights in the heaven(sun and stars), the 24 hour days, only now, on verse 14?

To be honest, I don't know what to make of "the evening and the morning" part, because gramatically, it doesn't seem to make sense with either theory. Perhaps one of the more hardcore members of the board can explain this to me.

Felgar wrote:It it didn't repeat "there was evening and morning" on each day then I'd be more inclined to agree that a different interpretation is plausible. But how else would an author indicate a literal Earth day, besides saying that there was evening an morning?

Each "day" could begin to effect of something like in the morning on day n, God created such and such. Then there was evening, the end of day n. Yet, as Mastermind points out, we have a very unusual construction here.

Genesis 2:4 also reads: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." I would expect it wouldn't have taken generations to form the heavens and earth, and that Genesis 2:4 would additionally read "in the days" (pluaral) rather than day (singular). All this suggests to me that a creation day (yom) in Genesis is not to be taken in their literal meaning of a 12 or 24 hour period of time, but rather in their literal meaning of an unspecified period of time.

Kurieuo.

Mastermind wrote:To be honest, I don't know what to make of "the evening and the morning" part, because gramatically, it doesn't seem to make sense with either theory.

Could mean the beginning and end of an era or literal day (however you want to look at yom)