Evidence for God from Science

zacchaeus wrote:That article is ridiculous, sorry, but didn't change my mind. What boggles it though is things like, 'well, day three couldn't if been 24hrs cause the process of vegetation takes over a year', give me a break. Through the lens of science, yes, but science is not how we proof the text, I find it utterly repulsive... Sorry again. I find myself in no position to question God if He said He did what He did- who am I to question Him? I simply believe Him in faith, even if a math teacher, a scientist, an agnostic, atheist, other Christian, or any other skeptic trys to make Him a liar, may His word be true. The fact that science tells me God couldn't do what He said He did, without any reasoning on my part, but that thought along- He can't, makes me believe Him soo much more. He does as He pleased... Even when we cannot fathom nor understand. Science trys to discredit miracles with facts, or could of beens- are you saying you don't believe in miracles, because ALL of creation is a miracle... And some of yalls biblical-world views suggest such disbelief, and I don't believe it!!! Lol.

Zacchaeus,

Nobody is saying God couldn't do it in a 24 hour day. What does the evidence show?

Do we see grass growing and dying in one 24 hour day? Do we see plants growing without the sun?

You are conflating your interpretation of what God said happened, with what actually happened.

Maybe God didn't say plants grew and died in 24 hours.

God created the universe and all that's in it. And He inspired the writers of scripture. So, with scripture properly interpreted, and the evidence in nature properly interpreted, there will be no contradictions. God created nature. God inspired scripture. Both are His work.

If you come to the conclusion after honest study, that YEC is what you want to believe, then that's fine. But you're not going about it the right way.

...and Noah's flood was global, not local. Lol.

zacchaeus wrote:...and Noah's flood was global, not local. Lol.

Sure. And as Theophilus said, Adam was created with both a penis, and a china.

How am I not lol, I asked legit questions. The first part of the article turned me off. It feels written with bias, that too is fine.

I find it harder to believe, less rational as you'd want me to believe, that God couldn't create plants without the sun (not light, cause we know there's a light source, other than the sun created), then to believe those same plants (which were not denying existed) to live billions of years without the same sunlight, that's in question- if we go that route. Neither rebuttle of how plants and vegetation miraculously were able to grow nor be sustainable billions of yrs without sunlight, solves the delima of NO sun until the 4th day. I'm not being rash here, I'm logically showing the illogical falicy here... Not sure why nobody else sees it?

zacchaeus wrote:That article is ridiculous, sorry, but didn't change my mind. What boggles it though is things like, 'well, day three couldn't if been 24hrs cause the process of vegetation takes over a year', give me a break. Through the lens of science, yes, but science is not how we proof the text, I find it utterly repulsive... Sorry again. I find myself in no position to question God if He said He did what He did- who am I to question Him? I simply believe Him in faith, even if a math teacher, a scientist, an agnostic, atheist, other Christian, or any other skeptic trys to make Him a liar, may His word be true. The fact that science tells me God couldn't do what He said He did, without any reasoning on my part, but that thought along- He can't, makes me believe Him soo much more. He does as He pleased... Even when we cannot fathom nor understand. Science trys to discredit miracles with facts, or could of beens- are you saying you don't believe in miracles, because ALL of creation is a miracle... And some of yalls biblical-world views suggest such disbelief, and I don't believe it!!! Lol.

I did'nt see this before my last post. Let me ask you this,do you believe faith is blind? Because you seem not interested in ways to validate what God's word says,you insinuate that we don't know or believe God can do miracles or create the universe and everything in it anyway he chooses? This is silly,still I don't see how you can believe we are to believe the interpretation you believe is true even when nature God created contradicts it? And we are to just still keep on believing the interpretation you believe is true while ignoring what the earth and universe God created tells us? I mean sure there is young earth creation science that attempts to make its own science to back up their interpretation however is shows just bias imo. It is much,much better if secular science validates your interpretation even if secular science does not regard the bible,it is up to us Christians to seek it out and find it and point out how it confirms God's word.You also imply that the YEC is the only true interpretation but yet have yet to present scripture to back it up,it is just stating YEC is true and we are wrong to reject it. Based on what scripture?

Now don't get mad and think we are picking on you because we are not butif you're going to hold to YEC it is up to you to explain why biblically and not just declare it is the true interpretation. YEC has not always been the most popular interpretation before the 1960's YEC was a minority view,it was notuntil Henry Morris published "The Genesis Flood" in the 1960's that YEC became so popular and has grew since then,so declaring it is the true interpretation just because of popularity does not make it true.

zacchaeus wrote:How am I not lol, I asked legit questions. The first part of the article turned me off. It feels written with bias, that too is fine.

I find it harder to believe, less rational as you'd want me to believe, that God couldn't create plants without the sun (not light, cause we know there's a light source, other than the sun created), then to believe those same plants (which were not denying existed) to live billions of years without the same sunlight, that's in question- if we go that route. Neither rebuttle of how plants and vegetation miraculously were able to grow nor be sustainable billions of yrs without sunlight, solves the delima of NO sun until the 4th day. I'm not being rash here, I'm logically showing the illogical falicy here... Not sure why nobody else sees it?

Where on earth did you come up with the idea that plants(that need the sun) existed for billions of years without the sun? I don't recall that being claimed by anyone.

zacchaeus wrote:...and Noah's flood was global, not local. Lol.

I agree with you Noah's flood was global however I would say that the reason so many people reject Noah's flood is because of the way YEC's have taught it and it is not even biblical and is not valid scientifically either. Gap Theorists teach Noah's flood but they teach it much,much more true biblically and scientifically,sure it may not prove it,but it is much,much more believable both biblically and scientifically. It is the way YEC's have taught Noah's flood and I think this is one reason Day Agers reject Noah's flood and make a case for a local flood.I believe YEC's have done much damage to the idea of Noah's flood because of the way they have explained how it happened. People reject it and make fun of it because of the way YEC's have taught it. They are in denial about this though.I believe it causes alot of people to accept evolution.

Zacchaeus, I wonder what you make of an interpretation that I present here? You might be missing some pieces of the communication exchange, but should be able to follow. I hope, one day, to flesh it out more.

Rick, what 'day' were plants created? Follow me now, what 'day' was the sun made? How long is a 'day'?

Crap Kur found us lol...

So just read through the 'Christians' other 3 Bibles just to understand a 'single word' of the scriptures!!! Isnt that too painstaking.

It's like telling everyone at church to believe your bible, except Genesis, 65 other books, and a handful of books that don't make it in your bible... It's right but its wrong, it says what it says, but doesn't say what it means. Every word has a different meaning, kur is working on the volumes, stay tuned folks, continue coming the following weeks, in ten years I promise, we might understand every word in gen 1:1.

It's silly... I'll probably stop buying Bibles and giving them away to my daughters, my grandparents, or strangers- I wouldn't want them to believe wrong. I think man is making even the simple simpletons of scripture to complex and complicated. If you cannot read scripture and just believe it, whats the point? It should be as literal as can apply, when it cannot, then it may be figurative, or a miracle in which we don't discredit the literalness to be true, but we believe if God said it He probably did, even when we cannot wrap our minds around it.

I'm okay at this point to simply agree to disagree, and I'm okay with that.

zacchaeus wrote:Rick, what 'day' were plants created? Follow me now, what 'day' was the sun made? How long is a 'day'?

Plants created on the third creation day.
Sun was created on or before the first creation day.
Creation Days weren't all the same length. Probably millions or even billions of years long.

So, sun existed well before plants.

zacchaeus wrote:
I'm okay at this point to simply agree to disagree, and I'm okay with that.

At this point, agreeing to disagree is a cop out. You don't even understand the other side of the argument. You need to understand what you're disagreeing with, before you can disagree with it.

And that's what I'm trying to help you with. I'm not trying to convince you that OEC is true. Im just trying to help you understand it.

Just settle down, listen to what I'm saying, and try to understand. If you don't understand something, I can clarify it.

zacchaeus wrote:Crap Kur found us lol...

So just read through the 'Christians' other 3 Bibles just to understand a 'single word' of the scriptures!!! Isnt that too painstaking.

It's like telling everyone at church to believe your bible, except Genesis, 65 other books, and a handful of books that don't make it in your bible... It's right but its wrong, it says what it says, but doesn't say what it means. Every word has a different meaning, kur is working on the volumes, stay tuned folks, continue coming the following weeks, in ten years I promise, we might understand every word in gen 1:1.

It's silly... I'll probably stop buying Bibles and giving them away to my daughters, my grandparents, or strangers- I wouldn't want them to believe wrong. I think man is making even the simple simpletons of scripture to complex and complicated. If you cannot read scripture and just believe it, whats the point? It should be as literal as can apply, when it cannot, then it may be figurative, or a miracle in which we don't discredit the literalness to be true, but we believe if God said it He probably did, even when we cannot wrap our minds around it.

I'm okay at this point to simply agree to disagree, and I'm okay with that.

We all believe the bible is true and despite perhaps your frustration there is a reason God blessed with different translations of the bible and Hebrew/Greek concordances to study his word with both a telescope and micro-scope to have better understanding. We get out of it what we put into bible study.All interpretations should be considered truthfully and honestly on their own merits to make sure we have the right interpretation.it matters alot if the bible teaches there was a former world that perished before God made this world,it is very important to honestly check it out and to accept it if it is right.I know all about YEC and what it believes because I used to believe it but when I heard about the Gap Theory I honestly researched it and was convinced it is the right one and I changed my mind based on what the bible says first,then I started trying to find science and evidence that validated it and I'm still finding more as I research. Accepting the Gap Theory does not effect anything else about the bible whether it be our need for salvation through Jesus,bible prophecy or any of the other things it teaches us so there is no problem with it biblically and I believe it actually enhances our bible knowledge because of its focus on angels and Lucifer's rebellion.Lucifer sinned long before Adam and Eve were created.We could say in the former world God was testing angels and Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled and in this world it is all about man and woman and our relationship with God our creator.

Again, not flustered... I'm settled rick, ACB, maybe my text isn't conveying my demeanor very well. Acb how can you say I'm not the loner here lol. Weird. Rick, I've studied your post, sat under, and held the same belief for years- just as when you knew I use to be a conditionalist, yet now I believe in eternal salvation. So yes, I have the right and luxury to disagree... Unless it's you that don't understand yec. And ACB I don't find it as important as you deem above, not in regards to believing the truth of Gods word, not in regards to salvation, nor in a friendship between us all. It's interesting, its intriguing, those craving meet may want to know. But that's it.

zacchaeus wrote:There's no mind to change- I haven't decided one way or the other, but its obvious I absolutely lean one way. However, I've been taught and sat under teachings of OEC by way of finnis Jennings dake doctrine for four years.

Zacchaeus,

Finis Jennings Dake was a gap theorist. Saying you understand OEC because you studied Finis Jennings Dake, is like saying you understand OEC, because you studied Ken Ham.