Evidence for God from Science

Sorry for entering the discussion. I'm new to this forum so I beg your pardon if my post sounds weird. I'm just trying to understad which positions are around.

As far as I know the Hawaii test was conceived exactly as a test to show that K-Ar dating is unreliable on basaltic pillows (which forms underwater) due to the Ar melted in the sea water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ML&format=

This is a known source of initial contamination which, since it is well known, has nothing to do with the rocks which are dated to 3.8 billion years (none of which of course is from a basaltic pillow).

Moreover, it is well known that the *absolute* error in the age is related to the *relative* contamination; in other word the usual about 3 million years of error in the age due to the initial contamination is present in the 200 years rocks (making the dating unreliable for these rocks) but it is still a 3 million years error on the rock dated to 3.8 billion years (in which case this error is completely irrelevant).

Finally, there are a dozen of different methods based on different elements each suggesting that the oldest rocks on Earth are at least about 3.8 billion years old.
Is there here someone who wants to suggest that contamination is a good explanation to show that all these independent methods are all mistaken and exactly by the contamination which is necessary to produce a 3.8 billion year error?

As to say that rocks contamination in Uranium, Strontium, Argon etc. are all fine-tuned to produce a wrong age of 3.8 billion years!

angel wrote:Sorry for entering the discussion. I'm new to this forum so I beg your pardon if my post sounds weird. I'm just trying to understad which positions are around.

As far as I know the Hawaii test was conceived exactly as a test to show that K-Ar dating is unreliable on basaltic pillows (which forms underwater) due to the Ar melted in the sea water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ML&format=

This is a known source of initial contamination which, since it is well known, has nothing to do with the rocks which are dated to 3.8 billion years (none of which of course is from a basaltic pillow).

Moreover, it is well known that the *absolute* error in the age is related to the *relative* contamination; in other word the usual about 3 million years of error in the age due to the initial contamination is present in the 200 years rocks (making the dating unreliable for these rocks) but it is still a 3 million years error on the rock dated to 3.8 billion years (in which case this error is completely irrelevant).

Finally, there are a dozen of different methods based on different elements each suggesting that the oldest rocks on Earth are at least about 3.8 billion years old.
Is there here someone who wants to suggest that contamination is a good explanation to show that all these independent methods are all mistaken and exactly by the contamination which is necessary to produce a 3.8 billion year error?

As to say that rocks contamination in Uranium, Strontium, Argon etc. are all fine-tuned to produce a wrong age of 3.8 billion years!

As an Old Earth Creationist, I agree with you. The margin of error required to produce these types of results are so far-fetched as to be ridiculous. That's why, to my knowledge, there are no Young Earth proponents who ever have come to that position on evidence alone. They start with their interpretation of Genesis and then run interference with what 95% of those in the field have determined.

The general mode of operation on a scientific level is to point to the most egregious example of a scientic miscue, which there are many, and then to extraplote that instance out to absurdity. Another favorite approach it to identify one system, exclude the presence of any other balance to that system or related system and then claim it proves their point. This is where we get such favorites as the saltiness of the sea argument, magnetic field deterioration etc.

In the end the fall back is to deny the uniform nature of physical laws and claim that due to supernatural intervention, or some yet as undiscovered presence of some governing singularity, the speed of light was not always constant and this we are the beneficiaries of light where the source is measurable out to the 13 billion light years plus, all in the space of 10,000 years or left.

Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to me. Why not start with your interpretation of Genesis and see if there might be something out of order there? Turns out there might be. There is insufficient basis, in my experience, education and opinion, to require a 24 hour day be applied to the Hebrew words used.

So, I know others will pick up and defend their position and that is their choice. Just know that it is not required to accept their positions in this arena (or mine for that matter) as a prerequisite to faith in God or Jesus Christ.

Just know that it is not required to accept their positions in this arena (or mine for that matter) as a prerequisite to faith in God or Jesus Christ.

I agree. I know many sincere Christinans whose faith is not shaken by a billion years old Earth.

I know people whose faith is not shaken by the knowledge that their God does not exit in a physical sense.

for people who have been living under a rock, evolution is not for you to believe in or not, its a fact, its there for you understand.

narek33 wrote:for people who have been living under a rock, evolution is not for you to believe in or not, its a fact, its there for you understand.

Changes or adapting or, we could say, evolution I think does happen, and even more so in the past. The starting point for the evolution was the creation of God some 6000 years ago, not some self appearing bacteria, or virus in a pond. Sadly, this is what a lot of people think of when the word 'evolution' is mentioned, and of course that is 100% pure fable, and belief!

If evolution does happen, then you can trace back into the origins of everything that exists. So as long as you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in evolultion from bacteria to what we have now. However, if you do believe that evolution started only 6000 years ago, then how do you explain everything before that. Please consider what you are implying because it does not seem to make any sense. And I do not appreciate making the term evolution apply only to a given time interval, the definition of evolution "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" emphasis the word gradual and even God will tell you that 6000 years is not consider to be gradual.

narek33 wrote:If evolution does happen, then you can trace back into the origins of everything that exists. So as long as you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in evolultion from bacteria to what we have now. However, if you do believe that evolution started only 6000 years ago, then how do you explain everything before that. Please consider what you are implying because it does not seem to make any sense. And I do not appreciate making the term evolution apply only to a given time interval, the definition of evolution "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" emphasis the word gradual and even God will tell you that 6000 years is not consider to be gradual.

Evolution is not necessarily gradual nor does it necessarily lead to more complex or better forms.

Case in point, cockroach forms have not changed in millions of years.

Mammal radiation was sudden and all froms which followed was of the general body plan of the first groups which developed rapidly.

Many modern species are a result of reduction of traits such as the blind cave fish.

narek33 wrote:If evolution does happen, then you can trace back into the origins of everything that exists. So as long as you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in evolultion from bacteria to what we have now.

No. Just because some evolution may go on, and some did, does not in any way mean that it did not begin in Eden. No reason exists to take it beyond that.

However, if you do believe that evolution started only 6000 years ago, then how do you explain everything before that.

Simple, there was nothing before that. Then God created the universe and world, and things adapted frm there.

Please consider what you are implying because it does not seem to make any sense. And I do not appreciate making the term evolution apply only to a given time interval, the definition of evolution "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" emphasis the word gradual and even God will tell you that 6000 years is not consider to be gradual.

Appriciate it or not, that is all the evidence says. The "gradual" bit is simply the observation of how the adapting process or evolving if you will, NOW works. It has nothing to do with how it used to work. There are many differences recorded in the bible in the past. Genetically, for example we used to breed with relatives, and it was fine, not in any way harmful. We also used to live somwhere in the order of nine and a half centuries. The key here is to understand that the present is NOT the key to the past, it was radically different.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

narek33 wrote:If evolution does happen, then you can trace back into the origins of everything that exists. So as long as you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in evolultion from bacteria to what we have now. However, if you do believe that evolution started only 6000 years ago, then how do you explain everything before that. Please consider what you are implying because it does not seem to make any sense. And I do not appreciate making the term evolution apply only to a given time interval, the definition of evolution "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" emphasis the word gradual and even God will tell you that 6000 years is not consider to be gradual.

Evolution is not necessarily gradual nor does it necessarily lead to more complex or better forms.

Case in point, cockroach forms have not changed in millions of years.

Mammal radiation was sudden and all froms which followed was of the general body plan of the first groups which developed rapidly.

Many modern species are a result of reduction of traits such as the blind cave fish.

Good points. Of course I mean that generally, any evolving we see is slow.

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

narek33 wrote:If evolution does happen, then you can trace back into the origins of everything that exists. So as long as you believe in evolution, then you have to believe in evolultion from bacteria to what we have now. However, if you do believe that evolution started only 6000 years ago, then how do you explain everything before that. Please consider what you are implying because it does not seem to make any sense. And I do not appreciate making the term evolution apply only to a given time interval, the definition of evolution "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" emphasis the word gradual and even God will tell you that 6000 years is not consider to be gradual.

Evolution is not necessarily gradual nor does it necessarily lead to more complex or better forms.

Case in point, cockroach forms have not changed in millions of years.

Mammal radiation was sudden and all froms which followed was of the general body plan of the first groups which developed rapidly.

Many modern species are a result of reduction of traits such as the blind cave fish.

Good points. Of course I mean that generally, any evolving we see is slow.

But Dad, haven't you in previous posts in this very thread claimed that evolution in terms of explaining the scope of speciation today from what must have decended from Noah's Ark, took place on a hyper-accelerated basis?

If such large scale, hyper-evolutions took place, shouldn't there be some hard evidence of this in fossilization as well as a similar fast pace today? 4,200 years or so of such a pace should allow for observation if not in one than certainly over a few generations, don't you think?

How do you explain that?

Canuckster1127 wrote: But Dad, haven't you in previous posts in this very thread claimed that evolution in terms of explaining the scope of speciation today from what must have decended from Noah's Ark, took place on a hyper-accelerated basis?

Since all the animals were on the ark, it seems that a lot of evolving and adapting must have happened since then, yes.

If such large scale, hyper-evolutions took place, shouldn't there be some hard evidence of this in fossilization as well as a similar fast pace today?

The evidence we have of the evolution that did happen is right in the fossil record. All that remains to be determined is the timeframe. Although I think most of the geologic column was pre flood.

4,200 years or so of such a pace should allow for observation if not in one than certainly over a few generations, don't you think?

How do you explain that?

Easily. I think that a universal change took place about a century after the flood. A change in the laws of physics, in light and matter itself. All because the spiritual component was seperated, leaving us in only a physical universe. This is what we now live in, and it is temporary. One day, the bible says a new heavens will be revealed, and this universe pass away.
So, the majority of the record as I see it was from before the flood, and in the century after the flood was when we saw the hyper evolution after the flood. Since then, it has been present processes.

I dont know if anyone has pointed this out..

Exodus 20:9
Six days you shall labour and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.

11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, but he rested on the seventh day.

I'm confused about the theory of creation taking thousands or even millions of years..

VicToR wrote:I dont know if anyone has pointed this out..

Exodus 20:9
Six days you shall labour and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.

11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, but he rested on the seventh day.

I'm confused about the theory of creation taking thousands or even millions of years..

Welcome Victor.

That has been discussed and it is indeed one of the stronger arguments textually that I am aware of. I've concluded for now that it is not deciding however and for my part, I've decided on Old Earth Creationism as the best explanation of all the competing possibilities.

The 6 periods followed by a day of rest in this regard is an appeal to pattern, not necessarily a definition of the "days" alluded to within the Genesis Passage as 24 hours in the context of Genesis itself.

The author is the same in both, Moses. However, even within Genesis 1 & 2 the Hebrew Word "yom" is used in at least 2 of it's 3 contexts and the argument to be deciding, in my mind, needs to come from the text in question itself, although parallel passages are helpful.

A parallel passage in the opposite direction would be Psalm 90, which interestingly enough, is a psalm of Moses and shows that he understood and used the Hebrew word "yom" to mean either the daylight portion of a solar day, a solar day, or an extended period of time.

Glad you are here and welcome to the discussion.

Dear BGoodForGoodSake and whoever may read this,

Talking about the evolution and what it really implies can not be applied to individual things. Such as your example of a cockroach does not prove anything about evolution because in order for evolution to take place many parameter which are out of our reach have to coincide. However, looking at the world as a whole evolution is not an idea but a fact. A fact that some of you refuse to understand but that is all up to you. The definition of evolution says that it "usually" changes to more complex and better form. There is exception to mostly everything.

Now, regarding the Bible, I believe that people take what is written in the Bible to be literally the absolute truth. Again, that is your choice to do so but to say that the world/humanity started some 6000 years ago and there is no other explanation to it and that the world as explained by the Bible is the absolute truth is naive and to some degree obscure. I had the privilege of living next to Mount Ararat most of my life and without a doubt there is absolutely no way that Noah's ark landed on it and is still buried. I even feel funny talk about things like that. And one last thing, because I have received and email from the discussion forum director asking me not to post on this website and this will mostly likely be the last, remember that the Bible was written by people like us and not to be rude, but it is just a way of control, because without religion there would be chaos.

Thank you.

VicToR wrote:I dont know if anyone has pointed this out..

Exodus 20:9
Six days you shall labour and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.

11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, but he rested on the seventh day.

I'm confused about the theory of creation taking thousands or even millions of years..

God was just setting up a cycle of work and rest for Israel, and providing His own example of creation as to what would be a good cycle. One has to read further into the comparison in order to say yom in Genesis 1 must represent 24 hours. It really is up to YECs to further argue how yom in Exodus 20:9-11 means yom in Genesis 1 carries the same meaning. Israel's day is obviously 24 hours, but how does this mean God's creation days were? The most one can confidently conclude is God's creation is just an example for a cycle of work and rest, which mind you also applies to Israel's working of the land (i.e. six years working the land followed by a one year sabbath of rest).

For example, Leviticus 25 talks of the Sabbath in years: "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD. For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD." The Sabbath comes from the creation, yet does this mean the days of creation took years? No. It is just a pattern being followed.

Now to throw a spanner in the works for YECs, Scripture supports God's seventh day as continuing to this very day. So if God's sabbath day was not the same length as Israel's sabbath day, then there is no reason why God's six days of creation should be the same length as Israel's six days of work. Nowhere does Scripture say the seventh day has ended, yet for all other days in God's creation a definite end is given.

Futher to this, in Psalms 95:7-11 we read a message from God to Israel:

Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me, though they had seen what I did.
For forty years I was angry with that generation; I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways."
So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."

Question: How was it possible for Israel to enter God's rest if it had ended?

And even further we have Hebrews 4:1-11. Here are some relevant verses (4:1,3-6,9-11):

1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";
5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST."
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,
9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

Several notes of significance. In verse 1, we see talk of entering God's rest. In verses 3 and 4, God's rest is associated to the same one at the end of God's creation. In verse 6, it is then pointed out that some remain to enter that rest. This means God's seventh day of rest has lasted at least 6000+ years! And if this is true, then YECs appear to be focusing too much on one passage (i.e., Exodus 20:8-12) while neglecting other passages in Scripture.

Kurieuo