Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:Genesis 6

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

If what you say is true than this is not. I choose to beleive the Word of God.

I choose to uphold Scripture also (otherwise I would not have quoted from Peter), so I don't believe it is an issue of one not believing Scripture. While I do not wish to debate, I wish to defend since you have now attacked my position. If you are willing to let me end on defending my position (and I'll try not to go on the offensive against yours), then no further response should be needed. I do think Christians should be aware to all the Scriptural facts.

Firstly, everywhere erets ("earth") is translated, as I learnt in my Hebrew class, it also means "land". Thus, your Genesis 6 passage would be better read as follows:

• Genesis 6
  
  17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the land, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the land shall die.
  19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the land; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the land, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the land, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the land: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Now a further point I wish to raise to defend my position is based upon passages within Genesis 8 where we read the following:

• Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
  Gen 8:6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;
  Gen 8:7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.
  Gen 8:8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;
  Gen 8:9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.

Here we see that the waters had descended enough to reveal the tops of the mountains. Noah then sent out the dove to see if it would find livable land, but it returned signalling it had not. Why? Well verse 9 says because water was on the surface of all the earth. All the earth? Really? No. Water was on the surface of all the surrounding land, for we are told in verse 5 the tops of the mountains were clearly visible.

I feel this defends my position adequately. And I am aware of other passages that can be brought forward, and which I am prepared to explain if necessary, but I will end here unless further challenges are made.

Kurieuo

gritty wrote:Sorry, kurio, I am tired of OE YE debate. All I can say is that I totally dis agree.

gritty

I can understand, and I don't mind that people hold to YEC. For example, Felgar appears to swing more towards it (unless he's changed his mind since? ), and I had no qualms with him becoming a moderator. As long as people are aware of the different positions, which was my intention here, and we can agree on more important doctrines surrounding Christ, then that is enough for me.

Kurieuo

gritty wrote:

Bgood wrote:One method of dating has been carbon-14 dating which uses proportions of isotopes to measure the age. However in the Himmalayas organic material is hard to come by. Therefore scientists have turned to another method.

Cosmogenic nuclides are isotopes such as beryllium-10 and aluminum-26. These elements increase over time with exposure to cosmic rays(highly charged particles).

C-14 Dating has been proven inacurate, and does not work at all. I have not studied B-10 or A-26 Dating. But I assume that if you are getting wrong answers, it does not work either.

gritty

Can you suggest a more accurate dating method?
Can you go into detail on how it is inaccurate?

Kurieuo wrote: I feel this defends my position adequately. And I am aware of other passages that can be brought forward, and which I am prepared to explain if necessary, but I will end here unless further challenges are made.

Kurieuo

While I see no solid evidence of old earth, and good records of young earth (Geneological records from Adam and Eve, and God said He made them) I will continue to beleive my position, until I am convinced by some adequate evidence that this is not so.

If your enterpretation is what you beleive to be true (unless convinced by some evidence), than I am sure you will do the same. How can anyone not?

So while I will for the time at least leave the issue alone, I would wonder what your opinion is that God said In Genises chapter 2 that He created the heavens and the earth and all of the host that is in them, The spirit that moved across the face of the deep, the same spirit that descended and stayed with Jesus said in The Gospel of John that He made all things, in the begining, and that there was nothing that was made without Him. This is the same God that says that it repented him that He had created the earth, and that He would kill everything that He made that walked on the ground. This accoutn goes on to tell of a flood that covered the land, and that the flood did in fact kill all the things God said he would destroy.

Also I wonder what you do with all the evidence for a global flood. How do you put ocean basins on mountians?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

gritty wrote:

Bgood wrote:One method of dating has been carbon-14 dating which uses proportions of isotopes to measure the age. However in the Himmalayas organic material is hard to come by. Therefore scientists have turned to another method.

Cosmogenic nuclides are isotopes such as beryllium-10 and aluminum-26. These elements increase over time with exposure to cosmic rays(highly charged particles).

C-14 Dating has been proven inacurate, and does not work at all. I have not studied B-10 or A-26 Dating. But I assume that if you are getting wrong answers, it does not work either.

gritty

Can you suggest a more accurate dating method?
Can you go into detail on how it is inaccurate?

There is no accurate dating system. They have all been applied, and fail to tell us with an degree of precision what the age of the matter earth is made from is. Take for example the spreading, and sinking sea floor different portions of it give different ages, this in itself erases any shred of scientfic support for any method of determining the age of the earth.

If their was an accurate and valid measure of the age of the earth, than it would have to report all one age. IT is contrary to long standing principles of science to say that matter simply appears as time goes by. IT is the same argument for the appearence of "Newer" stratified rock. Matter doesn't just appear, It must all be the same age.

This is not science it is part of the pseudo scientific explanation of how evolution could account for existence to realease man from any conscience, guilt, or morality.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

gritty wrote:God did create seas before the flood. He created waters before land, and seas with the land. However, the earth and the waters were gathered all into their place(s). And water was below the surface of the earth watering the whole earth. Genesis 1:9-10 and Genesis 2:4

2:4
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
1:9-10
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas: and God saw that it was good

So the seas were there before the flood and after the flood only much larger afterwards? All this is speculation.

Well yeah! Noone was there waith a video of it. There is strong evidence to support that the speculation is true. Hypotheses don't appear from thein air, they are usually sparked by an idea of how things sppear to work. Creation has evidentiary support. In fact the strong evidence for the flood, prompted evolutionists to develop their own hypothetical explanation. IT is the same evidence, it is how thigns appear. Evolution is laughingly complex, in order to explain the apparent world. One theory popular with evolutionsists is pangea, because it explains the massive enlargement of the oceans. Where did the water come from? This is a good question for evolutionists, becasue they argue against the great flood be asking that question, but fail to offer any explanation of their own how the oceans enlarged, they simply skip the hard questions. The world itself prooves the existence of God. Evolution is getting very top heavy, and a rediculous story that allows man to skip the hard questions, and ignore the existence of the creator of the world we see.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

gritty wrote:

Bgood wrote:One method of dating has been carbon-14 dating which uses proportions of isotopes to measure the age. However in the Himmalayas organic material is hard to come by. Therefore scientists have turned to another method.

Cosmogenic nuclides are isotopes such as beryllium-10 and aluminum-26. These elements increase over time with exposure to cosmic rays(highly charged particles).

C-14 Dating has been proven inacurate, and does not work at all. I have not studied B-10 or A-26 Dating. But I assume that if you are getting wrong answers, it does not work either.

gritty

Can you suggest a more accurate dating method?
Can you go into detail on how it is inaccurate?

There is no accurate dating system. They have all been applied, and fail to tell us with an degree of precision what the age of the matter earth is made from is. Take for example the spreading, and sinking sea floor different portions of it give different ages, this in itself erases any shred of scientfic support for any method of determining the age of the earth.

If their was an accurate and valid measure of the age of the earth, than it would have to report all one age. IT is contrary to long standing principles of science to say that matter simply appears as time goes by. IT is the same argument for the appearence of "Newer" stratified rock. Matter doesn't just appear, It must all be the same age.

This is not science it is part of the pseudo scientific explanation of how evolution could account for existence to realease man from any conscience, guilt, or morality.

The techniques don't determine the age of the matter itself, that is rediculous. Date determination works by measuring accumulation or decomposition. When material is eroded or recycled the "clock" is effectively reset.

Heres an example.
Lets say that on average a tree produces one ring per growing season. We can determine the age of the tree by counting the rings.

During the life of an organism it consumes carbon compounds from its surroundings. Most of this carbon is processed by plants from the atmostphere. High enery particles from the sun convert the carbon in the air to carbon 14 resulting in an equilibrium of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

Suppose that during the life of an organism all the carbon it is composed of is in roughly the same proportion as it exists in the atmostphere. When the organism dies it no longer adds carbon to itself. The carbon 14 decays at a constant rate. If we measure the carbon proportions in lets say a clay shard, we can tell the last time it was exposed and composed of atmospheric carbon. This is what allowed archaeologists to date the dead sea scrolls for instance.

Many in Europe beleive in evolution and they still maintain their morality.
Japan has been and continues to be godless to this day, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

I have a quick couple of questions for the global flood geology supporters:

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
(Gen 7:18-20 KJV)

How could Noah's flood have created the mountains, if the mountains existed when the flood began?

"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."
(Genesis 6:14 KJV)

If the sedimentary rocks which contain the pitch were formed by Noah's flood, where did Noah get the pitch he used to seal the joints of the Ark to make it waterproof, before the flood? The English word "pitch" is from the Hebrew word "kopher" which is bitumen, an asphalt-like form of petroleum.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The techniques don't determine the age of the matter itself, that is rediculous. Date determination works by measuring accumulation or decomposition. When material is eroded or recycled the "clock" is effectively reset.

Heres an example.
Lets say that on average a tree produces one ring per growing season. We can determine the age of the tree by counting the rings.

During the life of an organism it consumes carbon compounds from its surroundings. Most of this carbon is processed by plants from the atmostphere. High enery particles from the sun convert the carbon in the air to carbon 14 resulting in an equilibrium of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

Suppose that during the life of an organism all the carbon it is composed of is in roughly the same proportion as it exists in the atmostphere. When the organism dies it no longer adds carbon to itself. The carbon 14 decays at a constant rate. If we measure the carbon proportions in lets say a clay shard, we can tell the last time it was exposed and composed of atmospheric carbon. This is what allowed archaeologists to date the dead sea scrolls for instance.

Many in Europe beleive in evolution and they still maintain their morality.
Japan has been and continues to be godless to this day, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Yeah the carbon dating process can tell you based upon an unscientific assumption that uniformitarianism does apply, that something could be such and such age, if no contamination has occoured, but it is not very solid evidence at all. In any event that certianly cannot tell you the age of fossils.

By what mechanism is the "clock reset". I have to questions

What is the clock?
By what mechanism is it reset?

I realize that societies are that way I would expect it, my theory predicts that man has the knowledge of Good as well as Evil. Your evidence that you counter with only serves to prove my point. They have no basis within evolutionary origins to explain why thy resisist doing something "because it is wrong". Yet they do. The order of things is the order of things, even when described wrong.

August wrote:I have a quick couple of questions for the global flood geology supporters:

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
(Gen 7:18-20 KJV)

How could Noah's flood have created the mountains, if the mountains existed when the flood began?

"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."
(Genesis 6:14 KJV)

If the sedimentary rocks which contain the pitch were formed by Noah's flood, where did Noah get the pitch he used to seal the joints of the Ark to make it waterproof, before the flood? The English word "pitch" is from the Hebrew word "kopher" which is bitumen, an asphalt-like form of petroleum.

I agree. I have read that, and it appears that there were many high hills, and some mountians, so clearly from this theory, that must be the case, but the geological evidence supports that mountians were caused to increase, and many of the high hills became mountians. This would have neccessarily happened from a flood that brought the volume of water that causes the evidence that we see that seas have and are expanding, and that sinking and uplift are happening. If I came across as advocating that there were NO mountians, than I was wrong. I do hypothesize that they were of fewer number and lower elevation. I do recall that statement I made that could be contrued that way, and I certianly was not clear.

So, to be clear, I believe that many of the mountians we see today were caused by the flood, and others were caused to increase in elevation. The evidence clearly shows that the weight of millions of gallons of water and the higher density of the rock in ocean crust is causing the ocean floor to sink, and the evidence does in fact show that this sinking of the oceans is pushing the continental plates to converge and push up. Evolutionists do hypothesize a pangea with inlets that became oceans because the evidence for the flood of Noah's time is real and apparent, and cannot be ignored. Since they choose to believe the Bible to be fairy tales, they must farbricate their own fairy tales to describe effects of historical events that happened in the Bible.

To comment on your word pitch. This doesn't even pass a casual test by logic and reason. To start with you would have to be saying that the ancient hebrew language contains a word for something that didn't exist at that time. I can assure you that noone knew the word computer before they were devised and invented.

I see no reason to assume their could have been no strata in the created world, or oil. Pitch in the pre-oil days was created by smoldering pines, and collecting the creosote, wood resins.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The techniques don't determine the age of the matter itself, that is rediculous. Date determination works by measuring accumulation or decomposition. When material is eroded or recycled the "clock" is effectively reset.

Heres an example.
Lets say that on average a tree produces one ring per growing season. We can determine the age of the tree by counting the rings.

During the life of an organism it consumes carbon compounds from its surroundings. Most of this carbon is processed by plants from the atmostphere. High enery particles from the sun convert the carbon in the air to carbon 14 resulting in an equilibrium of carbon 14 in the atmosphere.

Suppose that during the life of an organism all the carbon it is composed of is in roughly the same proportion as it exists in the atmostphere. When the organism dies it no longer adds carbon to itself. The carbon 14 decays at a constant rate. If we measure the carbon proportions in lets say a clay shard, we can tell the last time it was exposed and composed of atmospheric carbon. This is what allowed archaeologists to date the dead sea scrolls for instance.

Many in Europe beleive in evolution and they still maintain their morality.
Japan has been and continues to be godless to this day, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Yeah the carbon dating process can tell you based upon an unscientific assumption that uniformitarianism does apply, that something could be such and such age, if no contamination has occoured, but it is not very solid evidence at all. In any event that certianly cannot tell you the age of fossils.

By what mechanism is the "clock reset". I have to questions

What is the clock?
By what mechanism is it reset?

I realize that societies are that way I would expect it, my theory predicts that man has the knowledge of Good as well as Evil. Your evidence that you counter with only serves to prove my point. They have no basis within evolutionary origins to explain why thy resisist doing something "because it is wrong". Yet they do. The order of things is the order of things, even when described wrong.

I told you one mechanism of dating, read my post again. That is the clock. If a tree is burned the information telling us of the age of the tree is gone. If a rock erodes the information contained within likewise dissapears.

August wrote: To comment on your word pitch. This doesn't even pass a casual test by logic and reason. To start with you would have to be saying that the ancient hebrew language contains a word for something that didn't exist at that time. I can assure you that noone knew the word computer before they were devised and invented.

I have done a poor job assuming your position. I guess what you are saying is since they have the word, and assuming that it cannot mean both things, that they must have had pitch?

To comment on your word pitch. This doesn't even pass a casual test by logic and reason. To start with you would have to be saying that the ancient hebrew language contains a word for something that didn't exist at that time.

I don't follow. The word did exist in Hebrew, as I quoted.

Edit: We cross posted here. Yes, that is my assumption.

I have read that, and it appears that there were many high hills, and some mountians, so clearly from this theory, that must be the case, but the geological evidence supports that mountians were caused to increase, and many of the high hills became mountians.

Have any Scriptural evidence to back that up? Otherwise you are arguing purely from a geological science perspective, and it is back to the empirical, is that your intent? Also, it leaves you with this problem, which of the mountains were there before the flood, and which were not?[/quote]

August wrote:

To comment on your word pitch. This doesn't even pass a casual test by logic and reason. To start with you would have to be saying that the ancient hebrew language contains a word for something that didn't exist at that time.

I don't follow. The word did exist in Hebrew, as I quoted.

Edit: We cross posted here. Yes, that is my assumption.

I have read that, and it appears that there were many high hills, and some mountians, so clearly from this theory, that must be the case, but the geological evidence supports that mountians were caused to increase, and many of the high hills became mountians.

Have any Scriptural evidence to back that up? Otherwise you are arguing purely from a geological science perspective, and it is back to the empirical, is that your intent? Also, it leaves you with this problem, which of the mountains were there before the flood, and which were not?

[/quote]

Given the evidence of sinking oceans and lifting mountians, that all of the mountians and hills are higher than they were before. Again this is hypothetical speculation driven from a theory of creation, and doesn't have any biblical support. It is conjecture of what actually accoured based upon the evidence of geology. Yes I am arguing from a scientific angle, If I wanted to argue based on scripture, I would simply say that I ebelieve it to be so, and not try to explain it, but such is human nature.

There is really no way of saying exactly what woudl happen in a global flood like the one depicted in genises, but what we see for evidence today is not incosistent with what may have happened

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I told you one mechanism of dating, read my post again. That is the clock. If a tree is burned the information telling us of the age of the tree is gone. If a rock erodes the information contained within likewise dissapears.

This is not scientific support for anything. So you are saying that when rocks erode, something happens to the redioactive isotopes in that sediment?

To say that this clock BS has any accuracy you are now telling me you need to know how many times a rock has eroded, and what processes it has gone through in order to tell me the age?

This isn't a cogent explanation of the validity of aging processes. Clearly the process cannot tell you the age, because you don't know what processes have occoured. I guess you are saying that the isotopes leak back in when it erodes.

Please explain this process further