Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:44 pm**

Jbuza wrote:Dad

I'm not real sure what to make about the pre seperation world. The Bible surely does indicate two places where God changes the order of things. That being the Fall from God's grace, and the judgements that God made at that time, and the other place is when God destroys the Earth in a great flood, and his words to Noah and the other souls that survived to our time and our world.

I don't know how those two events effected the operation of physics or the basic principles that we see operating today.

It is clear to anyone that accepts a special creation by God that what science comprehends and understand isn't the totality of existence. It is clear that Jesus promises that we will have a new Body one day, and that he still has his body at this day, so clearly there is going to be some changes to that physical reality when it is married with a spiritual existence.

I find what you say to be interesting, but just don't really know what to say to or about the whole notion as you propose it applies to the past.
Hey, that's fine. It is a concept so big, it requires some pause for consideration. Meanwhile, it has been fun, having men of learning on the ropes, and unable to hardly put up much of a fight. I like this better than the days when they would rake me over the coals with my trying to use flood geology.

It seems clear to me that at least in Eden physical reality was different than it is today.
Bingo. How else could we live forever? Also, heaven has to be different.

Of course it seems almost so foolish when compared to the worlds perception of wisdom that I find it entirely probable.

God has a sense of humor.

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 9:54 pm**

Felgar wrote: I'm not an ice core scientist for goodness sake but I'm sure the conclusions drawn are plausible and reasonable; certainly much more reasonable than some alternative hyper-time universe.
OK. Let me get this position straight. You basically don't much know what you really are talking about, but are "sure" it is "plausible" and "reasonable"! Got it.

The concepts are inherently intuitive... Contamination of the ice will occur in those periods where it is static (or melting) for a duration of timem, and thus a layer will be visible.
Contamination? In other words, --what? The ice, as it was formed, picked up some materials? If so, why could this not have happened rapidly? I could easily see a big change coming, and a rapid ice age, and materials being caught in layers.

Edit: And while we are at it, this is not the only layer sample able to be counted. Some old lake beds show multiple deposits of things inherently annual by nature (such as seeds) and can be counted also.

No problem there. Seeds pre split/flood, or even in a big change process are naturally no surprise.

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:06 pm**

dad wrote:http://cires.colorado.edu/science/group ... s_2001.pdf and from within I quote:
[pg 10]Formation of the Greenland ice sheet is dated as far back as 2.4 million years by ocean sediment layers of ice rafted debris. Ice at its base has been dated to older than 130,00 years [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1997] Layers are countable down to 90% of the depth or 110 thousand years before present.
Are you joking? You offer up stale dry old age bread crusts, not really addressing the issues here? They date debris how? That is what you need to focus on, not reciting old age dates as if they meant the slightest thing in this world!

The debris which dates to 2.4 million years is not the point of the quote. The point is that the ice layers can be counted to 110,000 years.

dad wrote:
My question still stands: God demonstrates that he will create old things through Adam and Eve, on what grounds do you reject everything else being made old?
On the grounds it is utterly ridiculous. Do you really think He is a God that created dead fossils in the dirt? That is so pitiful.

Speaking of ice, the ice you're on is dangerously thin. As I've mentioned, your attitude towards this topic and towards those members who hold opposing views is neither welcomed nor tolerated indefinately. You have been warned.

(note that as I am involved in the discussion it will not be me that takes action, but rather another one of the excellent mods on this board, as they deem appropriate)

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:23 pm**

Jbuza wrote:I am sure the high and mighty and the smartest, wisest and most enlightened beings in this world can take us by the hand and lead us into a realization of "truth". Problem is there is a great abundance of plausible and reasonable sounding explantions and conclusions, that we simply have no way to verify.

First of all, the concept of an old Earth wouldn't affect a scientist making these observations. Why? Because they are consistent with current observations. The patterns seen 10,000 layers back are the same seen only 10 layers back, which we can compare against what we actually saw happen, and see that the seasons create an identifiable pattern. It's not just totally made up from no where, and a lot of it is most certainly verifyable. All they need to do is take a new core and look and say "Gee, that big storm we had 4 years ago made a pattern that looks identical to a full year, that's strange." Honestly, isn't it be rational to assume that the scientific community has thought to make these kinds of basic comparisons and validations?

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:31 pm**

Felgar wrote: The debris which dates to 2.4 million years is not the point of the quote. The point is that the ice layers can be counted to 110,000 years.

Complete nonsense. Of course they can't. Your point is that there are claimed to be as much as 110,000 layers. But this is peanuts. If it was, say, over a century, where most of the layers happened, that would only be 3 a day.

dad wrote:
Speaking of ice, the ice you're on is dangerously thin. As I've mentioned, your attitude towards this topic and towards those members who hold opposing views is neither welcomed nor tolerated indefinately. You have been warned.

OK, I will take note of your name. Felgar. From now on, and you are warned here, do not talk to me. You are cut off. Banned. Never shall you talk to me again. Toodaloo. I will note here, for the record, that you really have nothing to say, and seem to be suffering soreloserism. Ha. How do you like them apples?

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:38 am**

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:26 am**

dad wrote:
Felgar wrote: The debris which dates to 2.4 million years is not the point of the quote. The point is that the ice layers can be counted to 110,000 years.
Complete nonsense. Of course they can't. Your point is that there are claimed to be as much as 110,000 layers. But this is peanuts. If it was, say, over a century, where most of the layers happened, that would only be 3 a day.

dad wrote:
Speaking of ice, the ice you're on is dangerously thin. As I've mentioned, your attitude towards this topic and towards those members who hold opposing views is neither welcomed nor tolerated indefinately. You have been warned.
OK, I will take note of your name. Felgar. From now on, and you are warned here, do not talk to me. You are cut off. Banned. Never shall you talk to me again. Toodaloo. I will note here, for the record, that you really have nothing to say, and seem to be suffering soreloserism. Ha. How do you like them apples?

Dad,

You really seem to be having difficulty dealing with Moderators.

That's two you have now won with your wit and charm.

Please note these elements of the board discussion:

Mannerism
Within discussions, please be civil and courteous and do not resort to personal attacks. If you feel inappropriately attacked, please bring such cases privately to a moderator who can then intervene as necessary. While these instructions are likely unnecessary for the vast majority of participants, here is some biblical advice to help serve as a guide for conversations:

Write in a manner that you would want others to write to you - "in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12).

"But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth." (Colossians 3:8)

"Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6)

"In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, in order that the opponent may be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." (Titus 2:7-8)

Constructive Discussions
To have a constructive discussion, there are at least four main requirements:

At Least Two People: This point should be obvious.

A Specific Topic: All conversations should have one specific topic, and as such should remain on that topic. Any new topic that forks out and is too far removed, should be started as a new thread or brought to a moderator's attention.

Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything. So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.

Self-control: Chances are you will disagree with someone, and it is at this point discussions can turn nasty. Please remember to be respectful to others and keep to the topic rather than resorting to personal attacks.

Please note, that as a discussion board, a discussion implies interaction between two or more people. That means acknowledging and answering questions in a dignified and polite manner.

This may come as a shock to you, but simply restating your comments or beliefs to dismiss the question is not considered conversation. Stating that your position is "easy", "simple" etc may be true in view of its flexibility to mold to what ever need you have, but it also presents legitimate questions as to a plausible explanation your system would offer.

You're remarkably light on that.

One or Two sentence answers on this, offered in a superior, dismissive and rude manner, do not constitute debate or conversation and frankly provide no benefit to the participants of this board and the many who read it not necessarily posting themselves.

Frankly, there's a part of me that is very happy to have you continue in this manner, because you represent the YEC position very poorly and very rudley and as an OEC proponent I'm tempted to abide by the rule that when your opponent is making a fool of himself and his position, just be quiet and let him.

However, as a moderator the standards of the board must be upheld and allowing you to continue in this manner would be unfair to the participants as well as the watchers.

So, consider yourself twice warned and doubly so for being disrespectful to a moderator (Felgar).

Do it again and you will be banned.

I suggest you re-evaluate your approach if not your position and consider how your attitude and conduct reflects first on Christ whom you claim to serve, and then on your position, which suffers for it.

Respectfully,

Bart

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 7:54 am**

Jbuza wrote:
Felgar wrote: Honestly, isn't it be rational to assume that the scientific community has thought to make these kinds of basic comparisons and validations?
No I don't think that it is. Have you actually looked at ice cores, or I mean have you actually looked at pictures of ice cores? There are bands of many shades of grey, some quite light ones, and some very dark ones, and they are not in distinct alternating layers of light and dark. The numerous shades of bands suggest a plethora of variables interacting in different ways.

God, whom I consider to be the ultimate source, said that man can forever gain in knowledge, and never find the truth. This means that there are lots of people that are learning lots of things, but they are coming to the wrong conclusions. The early church leaders repeat numerous times that people will come along with stories that sound reasonable, but their stories will be false.

It appears that you have accepted as fact that each line in the ice represents a six month period of time. What evidence do you use to make the decision to recognize that as fact? Someone supposing they are drilling into ancient ice and counting lines? Popular acceptance? Some nameless scientist that could illucidate it clearly for us? Careful that you don't get taken in by every reasonable sounding story told.

Jbuza,

You do know that ice core layers often contain markers such as volcanic ash which tends to travel world wide in a major eruption, and so with these known events providing "Checks along the way" the accuracy of the rate and method of layers being laid down is consistent and verifiable? If you develop that pattern far enough back with such markers (there are others) then the probability of continued reliability going further back becomes increasingly higher?

If not, what do you offer as a viable explanation?

Bart

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:26 am**

Jbuza wrote:It appears that you have accepted as fact that each line in the ice represents a six month period of time. What evidence do you use to make the decision to recognize that as fact? Someone supposing they are drilling into ancient ice and counting lines? Popular acceptance? Some nameless scientist that could illucidate it clearly for us? Careful that you don't get taken in by every reasonable sounding story told.

On the topic of trusting the science community, I understand your point here, but it goes both ways. I do feel that I am in fact, very careful not to be taken by just any plausible explanation. But on the flip side, it is not reasonable to disregard highly plausible explanations just because they don't fit into one's pre-conceived notions about reality. Doing so is not to our benefit as a general rule.

Eg: As antibiotics and vaccinnes were being developed, I can just imagine the nay-sayers: "You think you can learn to cure smallpox and the plague with your magic medicine and your science? That's nonsense, because only God can heal the sick." In fact they missed out on the fact that having the world progress is part of God's plan.

Also, generally speaking I think it can come back to a matter of faith, how we take in new scientific knowledge. Ultimately science seeks (and yes, can find) truths about our physical world. God is truth and by very definition, when science finally has it right, there is a guaranteed agreement between God's Word and science, because they are both truth. If something contradicts our understanding of God's Word, then skepticism is certainly warranted. However, at some point is must also be considered that maybe just our interpretation of God's Word is what is flawed, or possibly incomplete.

A perfect example is the flat Earth; how in earlier times the Bible would seem to be espousing a flat Earth. But now in hindsight, knowing the truth about our solar system and about the galaxies and the size of the universe, we begin to see new aspects of God revealed in His Word; in essense additional truth in the Bible is revealed because of our altered understanding of the reality that God has created. Now when God speaks of creating the stars and heavens we are imbued with a much greater sense of awe at His majesty; no there are not a few thousand stars which can be seen at night, but rather about 100 billion stars in each of approximately 100 billion galaxies. The truth of the extent of God's majesty then, is now revealed in a new way because of our new knowledge.

It's for this reason that we musn't disregard all scientific conclusions that don't fit with our current understanding of God's word, esspecially when those conclusions are plausible and reasonable.

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:54 am**

If I may intervene for a second....

I think what is at work here is faith, by both parties. Yes, there is faith involved in science. For us to have a measure of trust in science, we must have faith in the fact that the laws of nature (created by God), are consistent. We also have to have faith in other things, such as the reliability of our observations, the uniformity of nature and our ability to understand the various phenomena in that context.

Let's look at some practical implications for a second, apart from the YEC/OEC debate. If we cannot assume the things I speak about in the paragraph above, then we are in trouble on many fronts, such as medicine, for example. How do we know that a cure will work in cases of observed symptoms, if not for consistency in behavior? How do we reasonably expect that if we type something on our keyboard, it will reach the screen that we send it to? How can we know that aircraft will fly, or ships will float?

In the case of the age of the earth, YEC proponents wish that we suspend our beliefs in the basic assumptions of science, and assume that the laws of nature functioned differently in the past. While they may appeal to the "God can do anything He wants" argument, that is nothing but question-begging, or assumption of the consequent, and does not serve as either an internal or external critique if the OEC position.

I will add a caveat here relating to origins science, and specifically the origin of life and mankind. I believe in special direct creation, but not that it happened in 6 days 6000 years ago. There is nothing in Scripture that necessitates that belief.

The questions we need to ask ourselves are:
1. What came first, creation or the laws of nature that govern it? Can nature come into existence exist without laws to order it? Did it happen at the same time?
2. Did God give us a reasonable ability to understand, manage and use His creation?
3. What does the Bible explicitly say about the age of the earth? (How do we literally arrive at the conclusion that the six periods of creation necessarily followed one another immediately, or that the periods of creation necessarily happened 6000 years ago?)

Science is by its very nature an inductive process, which means that it will never give absolute answers. However, that does not prevent the reasonable approximation of answers within given paradigms. Sometimes the paradigms change, as I believe we are currently seeing in the ID/evolution debate, and that leads us to better answers, and answers that will always conform to the absolute truth, od and His revelation.

As apologists, we are told to provide a reasoned defense of our faith, brought forth by loving God with our heart, soul and mind. Therefore, believing firmly in a God that cannot change, should we not also believe that that which God conferred on creation at the time of creation, those laws that are immutable and transcendant, cannot change either? Can the laws of morality, the laws of logic and the laws which govern God's creation be changed?

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:38 am**

Felgar wrote:For YEC's, I think there are two main areas to focus on. The first is the cosmoligical timescale which estimates an approximately 13-15 Billion year-old universe, based on the distance to the stars, etc. (Personally I think the 13 Billion conclusion is a little weak and will need revision as new generations of telescopes open up new observations) So for now I think the 13B thing is kind of moot anyways.

However, the light-travel problem though is on an even smaller scale (100,000 years for our galaxy alone, and then we can easily see how far away other similar-sized galaxies are) which makes a 6000 year-old Solar System very, very unlikely. The only currently semi-plausible explanation is the whole 'white hole creation' theory and frankly to me it seems extremely contrived. As understanding progresses though, further evidences will either support it or refute it; as it is, the solution seems a lot like the old solar system models forcing the Earth to the middle (far too contrived to be taken seriously)

Then second area of focus would be what we see here on Earth. The ice cores, magentic pole switching, glacier movements, sedimentary deposits in lakes and oceans, etc all consistently point to a timescale at least on the order of 100,000 years. In my mind radiometric dating is the least reliable method of establishing age, and in particular Carbon dating the worst of them. It always seems the focus is on establishing decay rate, when in reality I have always had a far greater problem accepting the other assumption, which is that the sample was in a pure state when it was first formed. What solid support is there to show that only pure Carbon-14 is built up in organic matter? So my conclusion is that individual samples should be taken with a grain of salt. However when consistently, time and time again, many samples from all over all yield the same result then it's unlreastic to ignore the conclusion. Meteorites of various compositions, the oldest rocks on Earth, moon rocks, samples transferred from Mars, etc all pretty well say "4.5 Billion years." There comes a time when the evidence is overwhelming, and eventually it is necessary to bring one's head out of the sand.

Now having said all that, I find it frustrating that neither OEC or YEC's address 'Appearance of Age' with anything more than a hand-wave. To me the answer is obvious: God, transcending time, created the universe and the Earth in an old state. More specifically, God created the past and present (even future actually, as God's entire plan was already conceived, executed, and completed in God's eyes right at the moment of creation) in a single moment. So from a human-centric perspective and account of creation, we have 6000 years of history. From a scientific perspective the Earth and the universe are actually as old as the observations would support, because the science can only speak to the physical reality, which God made perfectly old in his infinite knowledge and wisdom. From God's perspective all of time (past and future) are a single continuum. We were placed onto that continuum 6000 years ago.

AIG's answer to Appearance of Age (or 'light on the way') is that we see not only light but X-rays, etc from supernovae and other cosmic events, as if that's any different than the light itself. To that I simply shrug as I see no difference. It is a seen as a deception when I don't see it that way at all. It is God creating for us a universe cable of support life which is then necessarily *physically* old (age being needed for life-supporting conditions). It's funny that both YEC and OEC seem to think that God creates a 'base form' and then nature must take its course. For OEC that base form is the light of the Big Bang, and for YEC that is the Earth with no sedimentary layers, or the moon with no craters. But for YEC esspecially this poses a big problem, because even a moon with no craters is not truly unformed, or young, or whatever you want to call it. Why? Because how old is it that it has already cooled from magma?

Also, a final note about Adam himself. A basic reading of Genesis shows both Adam and Eve formed in an aged state also (Eve being created an appropriate companion for Adam, and Adam naming all the animals in the first week). So if Adam can be created already old, why not the rest of the universe?

Felgar,

I'm with you on most of this.

The apparent age things however begs a lot of questions,

What purpose would creating a universe of the size and scope we currently reside within, serve if the only reason to do so would be us and our earth? That is in effect what you need to assert if you make our earth and us (humans) the sole cause. Moreso if you argue apparant age for the rest of the universe tied to our known history.

Arguing that God could do something because He is omnipotent is a weak argument, in my opinion. If God could do something, then obviously He chose to do it despite infinite alternatives. Ought not there to be clear evidence within the Bible and creation itself that supports that assertion?

Is there a clear purpose based on evidence that you see to support this other than seeking to reconcile YEC and OEC?

Bart

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:43 am**

I would add these questions, Felgar, in respect of the appearance of age:
1. What Scriptural support do we have?
2. We are currently seeing the light of starts reaching the earth. Right now the scientifc explanation is that if the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, these stars are millions of lightyears away. If they were created with the appearance of age, where does the light come from that we observe?

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:22 am**

If I may intervene for a second....

You just did.

Welcome.

I think what is at work here is faith, by both parties. Yes, there is faith involved in science. For us to have a measure of trust in science, we must have faith in the fact that the laws of nature (created by God), are consistent. We also have to have faith in other things, such as the reliability of our observations, the uniformity of nature and our ability to understand the various phenomena in that context.

Yes. I think there is an element of faith or at least assumptions in all these areas. Frankly, since these factors are in fact observable and evident now, the onus lies upon the one claiming such differences in the past to present evidence within the same framework to demonstrate the consistency of that claim, and if not the cause of such changes, at least demonstrate the effects in such a manner in a framework of theory or hypothesis that makes the assertion viable or at least plausible.

To put it crudely, for me to claim that God can do all things, Therefore God can make monkeys fly out my butt, is hardly just reason to expect someone to buy shares from me in Simian Airlines.

Let's look at some practical implications for a second, apart from the YEC/OEC debate. If we cannot assume the things I speak about in the paragraph above, then we are in trouble on many fronts, such as medicine, for example. How do we know that a cure will work in cases of observed symptoms, if not for consistency in behavior? How do we reasonably expect that if we type something on our keyboard, it will reach the screen that we send it to? How can we know that aircraft will fly, or ships will float?

Obviously because we live in a universe created by God to evidence laws and consistency and therefore we place great faith that assuming all else is equal, this desired result will come to pass.

In the case of the age of the earth, YEC proponents wish that we suspend our beliefs in the basic assumptions of science, and assume that the laws of nature functioned differently in the past. While they may appeal to the "God can do anything He wants" argument, that is nothing but question-begging, or assumption of the consequent, and does not serve as either an internal or external critique if the OEC position.

Precisely. If such physical laws were different in the past there ought to be observable records both in the physical creation and ALSO in the early written history and art that gives some indication direct or indirect of these different physical laws. Further, within reason, those records should collaborate each other.

I will add a caveat here relating to origins science, and specifically the origin of life and mankind. I believe in special direct creation, but not that it happened in 6 days 6000 years ago. There is nothing in Scripture that necessitates that belief.

I agree with you on this.

The questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1. What came first, creation or the laws of nature that govern it? Can nature come into existence exist without laws to order it? Did it happen at the same time?

Obviously a YEC or OEC framework may yield a different framework on this. There are even variances within each camp on these issues. I can answer only for me. I believe God created the laws of nature first that govern the universe and broguth forth his creation primarily within those laws. As a progressive creationist, I have no problem with believing God can and did directly intervene with direct creative acts and frankly I believe He can and does at times still do this in the context of miracles etc. When He does this, that is precisely what it is, an intevention or creative act. An overall change of the laws of nature, requires more evidence than mere conjecture.

2. Did God give us a reasonable ability to understand, manage and use His creation?

This begs the question that if he did not then why did he make us stewards? I believe you can argue attributable confusion to the marring of the image which leave us less able to function in this role than we were originally created to be.

3. What does the Bible explicitly say about the age of the earth? (How do we literally arrive at the conclusion that the six periods of creation necessarily followed one another immediately, or that the periods of creation necessarily happened 6000 years ago?)

Scripture does not explicitly say, nor is it reasonable in the context of the day, the language, the culture and the non-presence of a scientific mindset, to expect that it would. The 6,000 - 10,000 year time frame is inferred from geneologies. The OEC position existed prior to modern science. There is no strong reason to doubt the consensus dates coming from science especially as the collaborate across so many disciplines, but were a major change in understanding to come forth, it would not be a difficult issue as the language within Genesis itself is broad enough to allow for this, and such specificity was never evidenced as a purpose of Genesis in the first place. Where the Bible speaks to an issue clearly it is reasonable to expect that the creation will affirm it. Where the Bible is silent it is reasonable to seek the answer with the creation using the gifts and abilities God has given us.

Science is by its very nature an inductive process, which means that it will never give absolute answers. However, that does not prevent the reasonable approximation of answers within given paradigms. Sometimes the paradigms change, as I believe we are currently seeing in the ID/evolution debate, and that leads us to better answers, and answers that will always conform to the absolute truth, od and His revelation.

True as far as it goes. Science is inductive when it is based upon direct observation and testing. It can also be deductive. Inductive is more reliable than deductive. Deductive often provides the hypothesis that science will test.

It requires more than a dismissive flip of the wrist to dismiss science when it has come up with a premise that continually tests true. Too many times, in my opinion, the response of the YEC side is to simply play this card and then fail to demonstrate an alternative hypothesis that fits in the framework of their presuppositions. That is irresponsible in my estimation and speaks to the appearance of being contrarians and luddites. As Christians, we have to do more. We need to be in the fields working with the Data and findings and using good science as well as good hermeneutics and theology.

As apologists, we are told to provide a reasoned defense of our faith, brought forth by loving God with our heart, soul and mind. Therefore, believing firmly in a God that cannot change, should we not also believe that that which God conferred on creation at the time of creation, those laws that are immutable and transcendant, cannot change either? Can the laws of morality, the laws of logic and the laws which govern God's creation be changed?

I may surprise you in this one.

God cannot change. He has changed His laws if not in spirit then certainly in application based upon the Finished work of Christ. I believe God could and God can change physical law if He so chose. It is not enough to simply claim that. There must be proof other than invoking His omnipotence (the monkeys are warming up for flight if you doubt this.)

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:30 am**

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:34 am**

Evidence for God from Science

Radioactive dating basics