Evidence for God from Science

It really does not matter to me since both sides appear to take Scripture seriously which I see as a good thing.

Yet, I do wonder... Answers in Genesis make clear that they believe God "is going out of His way to tell us that the 'days' of creation were literal earth—rotation days." A problem arises however as to how the first day begun if Earth did not exist during the first day.

Kurieuo

A problem arises however as to how the first day begun if Earth did not exist during the first day.

Hi Kurieuo,

I think that time or the measure of time does not require anything but the wisdom and power of God. All too often throughout history mans inability to explain how God could have done something has led to everything from misreading scriptures creating false doctrines to outright apostasy.

Our advisory, the father of lies will do anything and everything to take our eyes off God and His infallible Word. I believe we are to read the bible plainly as He has written the Word so babes can understand it.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. I don't imagine everything will be answered nor can be before the second comming But we do have to be cautious as it is also written:

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Lest we forget that our wisdom is foolishness to God.

Son Worshiper wrote:I believe in a young Earth, and a literal interpretation of Scriptures.
I've read the whole thread (pretty much ), and think all points of view have been presented fairly well, but my belief in a young Earth wasn't changed by anything that I read.

An old earth relies upon a literal reading of scripture. There's no such thing as a "literal interpretation." You either take the Scriptures literally or you do not. There can be and in this case, are, differing interpretations and both, in this instance, are literal.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

A problem arises however as to how the first day begun if Earth did not exist during the first day.

Hi Kurieuo,

I think that time or the measure of time does not require anything but the wisdom and power of God. All too often throughout history mans inability to explain how God could have done something has led to everything from misreading scriptures creating false doctrines to outright apostasy.

Our advisory, the father of lies will do anything and everything to take our eyes off God and His infallible Word. I believe we are to read the bible plainly as He has written the Word so babes can understand it.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. I don't imagine everything will be answered nor can be before the second comming But we do have to be cautious as it is also written:

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Lest we forget that our wisdom is foolishness to God.

Should we read it plainly as you understand it today in English, or should we read it plainly as Hebrews during the Exodus, (when it was written) understood it?

What efforts are you willing to make to understand it from that basis?

Think there's any possibility it's not as simple as you wish it to be?

IRQ Conflict wrote:Lest we forget that our wisdom is foolishness to God.

While it is true our wisdom is nothing compared to God's, God has given us a mind and expects us to be able to properly reason with it. For example, God wants us to love him with our "mind" as well as our hearts (Matthew 22:37). And Paul who was a very mind-oriented man bids people to test everything and hold onto the good (1 Thess 5.21). Thus, God has made us able to understand and reason, although I will say a person's heart can impact negatively or positively upon this. Therefore I feel my question is still relevant and needs an answer if a YEC interpretation is to hold.

And so we come back to my question. If God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them in six days (Exodus 20:11), and these "days" are literal Earth rotating days, then a question that needs answering in order for a YEC interpretation to be logically consistent is how did the first Earth-rotation day begin if Earth did not exist?

Could it possibly be that one needs to give up "day" in Genesis 1 as literally meaning an Earth-rotation day (which AiG suggests day is)? In which case I propose one ought to look to its other meanings.

Kurieuo

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Son Worshiper wrote:I believe in a young Earth, and a literal interpretation of Scriptures.
I've read the whole thread (pretty much ), and think all points of view have been presented fairly well, but my belief in a young Earth wasn't changed by anything that I read.

An old earth relies upon a literal reading of scripture. There's no such thing as a "literal interpretation." You either take the Scriptures literally or you do not. There can be and in this case, are, differing interpretations and both, in this instance, are literal.

I'm not going to argue.
I've already stated my 2 cents and am done with this topic for now.
I take the Scriptures literally and believe in a young Earth. Thanks for sharing your views.

Kurieuo wrote:And so we come back to my question. If God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them in six days (Exodus 20:11), and these "days" are literal Earth rotating days, then a question that needs answering in order for a YEC interpretation to be logically consistent is how did the first Earth-rotation day begin if Earth did not exist?

I don't see the connection here, are you saying that the YEC position is that the earth must be in existence for God to tell us a length of time? Lets forget about traditionl YEC and OEC postitions for a minuite. Clear your mind of all presupositions and read Gen 1. It says day in the context of one morning and one evening right?

Could it possibly be that one needs to give up "day" in Genesis 1 as literally meaning an Earth-rotation day (which AiG suggests day is)? In which case I propose one ought to look to its other meanings.

You seem to fail to recognize the fact that the contextual framework of the statement (not excluding the ordinal number) indicates a literal 24 hour period of one day.

I have a project for you, if God wanted us to think of Gen 1 as anything but a literal 24 hour period, then how could he (or should he) have framed it to mean such? I'll start:

(fake Gen 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first age.

Your turn.

Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:And so we come back to my question. If God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them in six days (Exodus 20:11), and these "days" are literal Earth rotating days, then a question that needs answering in order for a YEC interpretation to be logically consistent is how did the first Earth-rotation day begin if Earth did not exist?

I don't see the connection here, are you saying that the YEC position is that the earth must be in existence for God to tell us a length of time?

I said what I said and what I said should be quite plain. AiG have said one must take a day literally as an earth-rotation day. In which case the question needs to be answered how did the first earth day begin if earth was not created until day one had begun?

IRQ wrote:Lets forget about traditionl YEC and OEC postitions for a minuite. Clear your mind of all presupositions and read Gen 1.

Ahh... the accusation I've been "influenced"... I've mentioned my story elsewhere, and I must say this is quite a strawman. For when I was much younger, before I was at all familiar with what science says, I remember taking the days in Genesis 1 to be "God days" and not necessarily 24 hour days. This was on my own, plain reading of the English text in what would have been the NKJV. It wasn't until I borrowed tapes from my parents and listened to them, that the preacher said if you don't believe the days in Genesis are 24 hours then you have no faith in God. Therefore, I thought he's the preacher and would know, so I guess they aren't "God days." Eventually I came across the GodandScience.org website and it presented information that rang of truth and made so much sense, and it did so in a manner that was unthreatening and controlling (i.e., "you aren't really a Christian as you don't have faith if you don't believe..."). I remember reading the day-age interpretation for the first time here, and I thought so "God days" were the correct understanding afterall. That's right... I went from a plain reading of Scripture understanding days to be "God days", to believing them to be 24 hours because I didn't have faith if I didn't (and I saw no reason not to accept them at that time as being 24 hours), back again to my original position.

I also find it significant that many Church Fathers did not necessarily hold to a 24-hour interpretation of days in Genesis, but allowed for greater time periods. Infact as previously mentioned Augustine wrote, "As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think—let alone explain in words—what they mean." In "The Literal Meaning of Genesis," he added, "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar." Now you may wish the wipe aside all these respected early Christians as heretics, but then these are the Christians we respect who did much towards formulating many Christian doctrines we now accept without further thought. The fact remains that their plain reading of Genesis 1 did not limit "day" in Genesis as only an Earth day.

IRQ wrote:It says day in the context of one morning and one evening right?You seem to fail to recognize the fact that the contextual framework of the statement (not excluding the ordinal number) indicates a literal 24 hour period of one day. I have a project for you, if God wanted us to think of Gen 1 as anything but a literal 24 hour period, then how could he (or should he) have framed it to mean such?

Please go back and read what I've previously written regarding this. Even many YECs admit that this phrase of "evening and morning day x" represents the ending of a period of creation since the sun (according to YECs) wasn't created until day four.

Further if God intended 24 hour days, it should be written like Pslam 90:6: "In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away." So in a Genesis creation day we ought to expect something like: "In the morning God did such and such, and then evening came, one day." As it is currently phrased, it fits perfectly with the Day-age position.

IRQ wrote:Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

So why do you YECs confuse matters to say something like God could do something confusing like create Earth on the first earth day which began before earth was created?

Now it will not do to attribute a day to a length of time such as 24 hours. For 24 hours is only a property of an averaged out Earth day (some Earth days are a few minutes more than 24 hours, others a few minutes less). In other words 24 hours is not a literal a Earth day, but rather a property of an Earth day. Thus 24 hours does not take a day literally any more than a period of time. For exmaple, although I don't believe this since I don't believe we are dealing with Earth days in Genesis 1, who is to say that a property of an Earth day wasn't 1000 years as a day back then just as a day is 1000 years to God? Earth could have rotated much slower. Or do YECs want to employ uniformitarianism here for there own purposes, while denying it to those who disagree with their position?

Kurieuo

So why do you YECs confuse matters to say something like God could do something confusing like create Earth on the first earth day which began before earth was created?

I see nothing confusing about Gods ability to create something on day one in a 24(ish) hour period. Not only this but there is docrinal problems with OEC theory that I cannot dismiss.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

So why do you YECs confuse matters to say something like God could do something confusing like create Earth on the first earth day which began before earth was created?

I see nothing confusing about Gods ability to create something on day one in a 24(ish) hour period. Not only this but there is docrinal problems with OEC theory that I cannot dismiss.

God's ability is moot. No Old Earther denies God's ability. The issue is not what He could do. The issue is how He chose to do it. God could choose to have made us 5 minutes ago and placed us here with memories. Does that mean someone who argues for that greater creative act has more faith then you? Let's be consistent here and argue the reality.

YEC has doctinal problems, is inconsistent with the text and frankly, has assisted greatly in driving many people away from Christ.

You stilol haven't answered the question though. How do you assert a 24 hour days without, the sun, moon and stars? Be specific please.

How do you explain all the ativities of Day 6 in 24 hours. Be specific please.

Son Worshiper wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Son Worshiper wrote:I believe in a young Earth, and a literal interpretation of Scriptures.
I've read the whole thread (pretty much ), and think all points of view have been presented fairly well, but my belief in a young Earth wasn't changed by anything that I read.

An old earth relies upon a literal reading of scripture. There's no such thing as a "literal interpretation." You either take the Scriptures literally or you do not. There can be and in this case, are, differing interpretations and both, in this instance, are literal.

I'm not going to argue.
I've already stated my 2 cents and am done with this topic for now.
I take the Scriptures literally and believe in a young Earth. Thanks for sharing your views.

Arguing and explaining are two different things.

If you're going to state your opinion, then why not explain why you hold it?

You read the Bible literally? Are you inferring that anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you is not reading the Bible literally? Old Earth Creationism, as explained in multiple posts here is literal in its interpretation as well.

I certainly hope you will feel free to do more than pass summary judgment and sail on by. I'd like to hear your opinion defended.

If I've learned anything from Internet forums its that every single one of them has at least one of you. Someone who feels a need to nip at the ankles of anyone and everyone who feels differently about anything than you do.

Its a shame that you apparently have so little faith in your own positions that you feel a need to do that. Whereas I don't have that problem.

I know where I stand on most issues regarding my faith as a Christian. And when I do reconsider some aspect of my beliefs and learn from someone at a site like this, rest assured their forum manner is far less confrontational and sarcastic as yours has been.

As someone else said earlier in this thread, while everyone presented excellent cases, centered in scripture, to support their beliefs about the age of the Earth (and I enjoyed reading the posts), I found nothing compelling enough in the arguments of those favoring an old earth to change my opinion.

My Bible says that God created the universe and everything that is in it in 6 days, and on the 7th day He rested. That's good enough for me. I'm no Bible scholar. I haven't gone to Bible college, and I don't read Greek or Hebrew. But what I do do is ask the Lord for understanding each and every day before picking up my Bible and studying the wisdom that is within its pages.

There's a danger in over analyzing the Bible. Some folks just can't acept that in a lot of cases, the Scriptures are so plain and simple and easy to understand that no deep analysis is needed. So they instantly have to try and find some alternative meaning to those scriptures, since in their minds if the message is so obvious, it can't be. It must mean something else!

Which is really rather sad and pathetic if you ask me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Sincerely.

I am passionate about this and many other things. It might help you to know that in the past I have had my faith questioned and my fitness for service and inclusion in various areas of ministry because of my holding to an old earth position and so I do have a tendency to react strongly when I see by statement or inference a rejection of the validity of that position as an option and see it made a litmus test, especially by those who do not take the time and put the effort into establishing and defending their position but then seek to exclude those who do.

I'm not stating that you have done that. I overreacted and for that I am sorry. But I do not apologize for my position, nor do I apologize for asking you to defend yours.

You've made it clear that you hold to the position that you do and that is your choice and I respect that.

You've made statements about me and others that reflect a degree of the actions and dismissal that I've experienced in the past and that saddens me.

You accept what you read in English and can't be bothered to look to the original language and wrestle with the issue, preferring to hold to what you believe the text to say without seeking to examine the source or reconcile the obvious problems that that position lends itself too.

OEC has difficulties too, and I recognize that and I obviously must reign in my enthusiasm and I take that as a positive lesson from this exchange and I thank you for that. I'm here to learn as well as share from my learning.

I'm going to leave your personal comments here alone.

Without any sarcasm, pedantry or anything else, it saddens me to see someone dismiss a whole group of people and scholarship in one breath and in the other, dismiss hermeneutics, study in the original languages and a willingness to wrestle, study and show oneself approved in favor of just cruising and then getting angry when challenged.

To those viewing this exchange I apologize for my enthusiam in this regard and I will seek to rein it in.

I don't apologize for presenting and defending my position and challenging others to think and will seek to do that better.

Best to all.

Bart

Perhaps what each of us believe will always be a matter of faith (at least in this life) but here are some thoughts.

I believe that the "7 days" are a literal 7 days because the same word for "day" is used throughout the Bible for a literal day.

I believe it was a literal 7 days because we are given the ages of Adam and Even and they did not live to be a Thousand years old. Yet they lived at least "two days" The first being the 6th day when created and the second the "seventh day" when God rested.

If the day was as a thousand years, then the nights would be too which would prevent life as we know it to exist.

A few more points about the beginning is that the words for "light" in the beginning are two different words. When God said "Let there be light" this word means "fire" or "torch" while the light created by the sun and moon is a word which means "illuminator/illumination" see: http://www.septuagint-interlinear-greek ... enesis.pdf (you can read and download the LXX interlinear for free but the index and Lexicon must be purchased).

Although I question the Big Bang, one theory could be: If there was a Big Bang, then light was already on earth as everything started rapidly expanding so it would not have taken any time at all for the light to have reached our system and earth. How do we know that instead of our galaxy expanding, it is simply rotating and when we look into space, some of the outer stars are simply in a bigger orbit and we are leaving many of them behind while the inner ones are moving faster than we are and appear to be going in a different direction leaving us behind? (Does this make any sense?"

Anyway, that is my 1.5 cents worth. Take care, Billy

Dating Methods: Although there are different methods of dating, each one has not been proven infallible and even evolutionists have had dissentions on the accuracy of the methods used. Here are some examples:

1. Carbon 14 or potassium argon dating method: Using the potassium-argon method of dating, volcanic material in Hawaii that was less than 200 years old, tested at between 160 million and 3 billion years old. Shells from live mollusks were tested for carbon-14 and found to be “dead for 3,000 years.” also see: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html (Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating )

2. Strata Dating: The oldest known stratum is the Cambrian Strata. Within this layer lies not only the simplest life forms, but also more complex organisms. Other dating methods have determined that the lower strata or layers of rocks in the earth are actually “younger” than some of the upper layers of rock and in some places, it is spread out for many square miles. This would totally contradict the evolutionary theory of strata dating. One theory used by evolutionists to explain away this is the “Pancake Theory.” This theory actually states that the land (including many square miles of land) simply “turned over” and so the higher life forms were placed on the bottom of the strata.

3. If Oil in the earth was as old as geologists claim, (now 80,000,000 years) its pressure would have dissipated long before this. The present pressure of oil indicates not over 10,000 years.

4. STALACTITE FORMATION: Stalactites are the long conical formations that hang down from the ceiling of caves. They are often cited as a proof of the earth's great age. But that is not correct. They can form fairly rapidly.
"In a cave in the Tehuacan Valley of Mexico, a vast chamber known as the Hall of the Dead was found. A massive cave-in had occurred and one can still see the skeletons of people of the Olmec period there. The skeletons are all covered with stalagmites. Rather than an age in the millions of years, the skeletons are dated as no earlier than 1200 B.C. [Pensee, 3(1):48.]
A picture was taken in late 1987 at level 5 workings in the lead-zinc mine at Mt Isa, in north-western Queensland, Australia. It is one of the largest known stalagtite/stalagmite caves in the world.
At that time, the mine itself was only about 55 years old, which therefore is the absolute maximum age for all the stalactites.
About 55 meters (180 feet) above this level there is an aquifer (water source) in fairly porous dolomite, a rock that is usually quite dense. Slow, continuous seepage of lime-saturated water into the old level 5 workings was responsible for these formations.
Over a dozen other examples of lengthy stalactites that developed within a matter of a decade or less could have been described. But the above illustration should suffice. Neither stalactites nor stalagmites are evidence that the earth is millions of years old, and the standard scientific measurement applied to them (one inch equals a thousand years) is totally inaccurate.
A delightful recent article in a secular travel magazine about a journey down into an Arizona cave powerfully made this point.
The article concerned a descent into a cave called 'S.P.' near Sierra Vista, Arizona. It featured comments by and about Jerry Trout, a cave specialist with the Arizona Forest Service. Trout has been a high-school teacher and a geologist. The writer states, 'What geologists used to believe was fact, in terms of dating a cave, now is speculation, Trout says.'
Trout is then quoted as saying:
'“From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor's sign above the entrance to Carlsbad Caverns [New Mexico] that said Carlsbad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988 the sign was changed to read 7—10 million years old. Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2 million years old. Now the sign is gone.”'
The article continues:
'In short, he [Trout] says, geologists don't know how long cave development takes. And, while some believe that cave decorations such as S.P.'s beautiful icicle-looking stalactites took years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days.'

Realize that much of Evolution (including the dating methods) has been based on so many lies. Examples are the different cavemen that were farces. Haeckal's embryo drawings have been totally disproved and yet are still used in evolutionary classes today. Darwin's Tree has been disproved by the sudden explosion of complex organisms in the Cambrian strata. If I were an Evolutionist, I, like many other Evolutionists, would questions these lies. There is the new discovery of the T-Rex with blood residue which certainly has changed the perspective of the last T-Rex being extinct well over a million years. The coelacanth fish was just another embarrassing example of the faulty "evolutionary chart." The dating of stalactites and stalagmites is still another.

For Young Earth Evidence see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=1842

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html (Problems with Radiometric and Carbon-14 Dating )

In the Cambrian strata, there is a sudden explosion of numerous complex creatures. In Lee Strobel's book entitled “A Case for Faith” he points out that this is like running through a football field where there are just a few simple organisms evolving for the first few yards but when one hits the twenty yard line, there is a sudden explosion of so many complex organisms at one time. The Darwin tree is destroyed with this discovery. Also, many skeptics may ask, “then why do we not find a higher life form such as man in any of these strata locations?” I believe the answer is because these locations are not where the Bible says man was created and came from. If man evolved all over the world from different ancestors, then there should be evidence of this in the strata all over the world. Historians, Paleontologists and Archeologists agree that the oldest civilizations come from the Fertile Crescent, the exact area that the Bible states man was created and populated. Fallacies of the dating system have occurred as well using the different systems. For instance, some mollusk shells were dated over a million years when the mollusks were still alive, so I believe that there is room for error when skeptics use statements of the dating of the mollusk shells as being proof of the dating method. Also see: http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartI.html

and one more amazing site refuting Evolutionary Dating methods is: http://www.evolution-facts.org/default.htm