Evidence for God from Science

Just a smalll side note regarding the essay that was posted. I think that the "obvious" similarites between diferent bears, moles, horses etc. does in some way support evolutionism as it can be argued that these forms are/were so succesful that they developed in many different regions. These regions may have similar climates etc. and so a form which is succesful in one should be successful in others (allowing for slight diferences). Also I would agree that you have massively underestimated continental drift and have failed to explain how 7 (of each clean creature) and 2 (of each unclean creature) managed to land on each continent. There are seven continents so that would mean one clean creature on each.....no breeding or it would mean that they simply didn't go to certain continents. Another question is raised by the fact that the Ark could only have "landed" in one place so the most land that could be covered by one "common species" as you put it would be Africa, Europe and Asia but eh.......what about America and Oceania/Australasia?. and how did bears get to the Artic? They are found in Europe America and the Artic but the Ark could only have crashlanded/beached in one of these places.

"God did not a brand-new Earth that was just starting, but that He created an Earth that was in the middle of its existence. He created Earth and the universe as if they had existed their respective millions and billions of years."

Why would God create an earth that appears to be much older than it actually is? What purpose does that serve?

Lord God Almighty. Lord Sabaoth. Jehovah-Shammah. El Elyon. Could he not create an earth that appears to be as old as it really is, within a universe as old as it ought to be, should He so choose?

We are talking about the Creator of the universe here. If the world truly were 6000 (or 8000) years old, then the internal evidence ought to point that way. Otherwise, interpreting the scriptures in such a way as to insist the earth must only be as old as the genealogies indicate must therefore be a mistake. Nuclear radioisotopes clearly indicate our earth and our solar system are closer to 4.5 billion years old, while data from COBE and WMAP demonstrate our universe is much closer to 13.7 billion years old. These are numbers you can take to the bank, scientifically speaking. The age of the earth was measured over 60 years ago, and has not differed on jot or tittle in all that time.

True, why would God pretend the earth was younger than it was.

during my school years i was brain washed with the theory of evolution told that not only is it possable but it was the only possability making it truth. after i graduated i decided to do a little research on the subject and have still to this day found no evidence for evolution. and one would think that if one type of creature was changing into another type of creature and the process take's hundreds of years then it is only logical that we should find some fossils that reflect the theory. yet i have seen nothing besides some fakes presented by national geographic. there for i encourage everyone to do a little research and post what you come up with.

gogobuffalo wrote:What does this mean? This means that God did not a brand-new Earth that was just starting, but that He created an Earth that was in the middle of its existence. He created Earth and the universe as if they had existed their respective millions and billions of years.

Haven't you heard?

The whole universe only came into existence in the middle of last June; we all appeared fully-formed and with memories of an entire life. But these memories were in fact formed at the same time that we were. In the middle of last June.