Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:You can ceratinly say that we can't trust these measurements....but then, that calls into question every sense we have, doesn't it?, since we live in time and measure time as if we trust it.

Do you know why we trust it? I'll let God tell you why.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Every physical law, every force, every equation we use we use it understanding that it is trustworthy. Every sense we have we depend upon. We build bridges, buildings, interact with each other, build safety regulations with the understanidng of time and space. But now you get to say that we trust our ouw bodies and brains that God gave us?!?

I would go further and say that we, based on trail and error have learned to do these things over the centuries and have proven these mesurements to be reliable and falsifiable in our immediate surroundings in our immediate time frame. That doesn't prove that time and space weren't divinely manipulated by our Supreme Creator. For example, who are we to say whether time existed as we know it or at all during the creation process? We can only speculate as to how it was done. But we know how long He decided to take doing it. Again see Gen 1:1.

You can certainly say that from God's perspective and from outside time, perhaps hisorically we don't understand the operation of time and yes, could this distort our understanding? Sure....but that is NOT to say that our current understanding does not point to an old age.

Conversely, you could say that our current understanding points to a younger age as well. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Here, Some articles you may find enlightening.

Either our basic senses are trustworthy and God gifted us with brains and senses that can trust our findings or He didn't.

Here again you are presupposing that our measurements at this point in time accurately reflect the past.

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

I said to take ALL of the pieces of evidence, not just one.....you must discredit all of them and find multiple sources, not just one.....

According to my watch, I simply don't have time.

I would say you are the one distorting scripture, here, Irqconflict. You are saying that God deliberately placed a universe in which it's own testimony cannot be trusted. God is, in effect, testing us, to see whether we believe Him or our own senses. Well, scripture in the psalms, Job, Genesis, points to the creation as an accurate testimony to God. I am not trusting the world's idea;s, i am trusting His creation.

I'm sorry but it doesn't look that way to me. This 'testimony' you speak of is based on mans assumptions and presuppositions. NOT the Word of God.

YOu are the one not looking at context of scripture, the usage of morning and evening does nOT have to point to 24-hour days, check the articles on the use of morning and evening.

You are correct. It does not have to point to a 24 hour period. But in the context of Gen 1:1; thats exactly what it does point to.

Edit: I would like to add that if the translators found the word 'yom' in the context of anything but a literal 6 day creation the English would reflect that and we would end up with something like this:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first thousand years.

But it doesn't, it says:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice also that it is singular not plural.

Further the Bible declares:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31)

zoegirl wrote:You can ceratinly say that we can't trust these measurements....but then, that calls into question every sense we have, doesn't it?, since we live in time and measure time as if we trust it.

But I don't say we can't trust measurements, only not extend them to infinity and beyond on a wing and a prayer.

Every physical law, every force, every equation we use we use it understanding that it is trustworthy.

Now, yes. Not in heaven, and not in Eden. You only assumed so. Like a fishbowl present laws have limits. You cannot go beyond your jurisdiction.

Every sense we have we depend upon. We build bridges, buildings, interact with each other, build safety regulations with the understanidng of time and space. But now you get to say that we trust our ouw bodies and brains that God gave us?!?

Right, and none of the bridges go to the future or past, if you notice?? They are all in the fishbowl of the present, where our temporary universe laws apply. The laws are not in question. They simply cannot be shown to apply to the far past.

You can certainly say that from God's perspective and from outside time, perhaps hisorically we don't understand the operation of time and yes, could this distort our understanding? Sure....but that is NOT to say that our current understanding does not point to an old age.

It only points there by the rules and realities of the the here and now. The statement that makes, is only good AS LONG as those laws apply. As long as this universe state existed. That, you have no idea about, and that is the issue.

Either our basic senses are trustworthy and God gifted us with brains and senses that can trust our findings or He didn't.

We can trust He set up this present world laws just fine. We cannot trust that, for no reason of science, and contrary to the bible, those rules always were and will be!

I said to take ALL of the pieces of evidence, not just one.....you must discredit all of them and find multiple sources, not just one.....

Like a bunch of rowdies, I prefer to take them one at a time. Otherwise there is such a mess you can hardly recognize what parts are what.

I would say you are the one distorting scripture, here, Irqconflict. You are saying that God deliberately placed a universe in which it's own testimony cannot be trusted. God is, in effect, testing us, to see whether we believe Him or our own senses. Well, scripture in the psalms, Job, Genesis, points to the creation as an accurate testimony to God. I am not trusting the world's idea;s, i am trusting His creation.

Is the coming new universe, or heavens a part of creation?? Is this temporary universe the bible says will pass away the created state?? Why assume that the perfect,, eternal created state could or would pass away? Something happened along the way, in the wicked world of men, that apparently affected things temporarily.

By the way, Dad, you never addressed the article or my question. What other Hebrew word can also mean "series of days" to address a long period pf time and has scriptural usage to back it up? TUrns out that, well, Yom does!

OK. So, yom coulld also mean something more broad in scope. OK. So?

YOu are the one not looking at context of scripture, the usage of morning and evening does nOT have to point to 24-hour days, check the articles on the use of morning and evening.

The usage of the days, quantified by mornings, and evenings, and plants being created days before the sun does, and usages such as Gen 3:8 where God walked in the cool of the day, etc,
mean that it is not millions of years, or thousands of years, or hundreds of years, or weeks. I can't see how much clearer it could be.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

zoegirl wrote:You can ceratinly say that we can't trust these measurements....but then, that calls into question every sense we have, doesn't it?, since we live in time and measure time as if we trust it.

Do you know why we trust it? I'll let God tell you why.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

I don't know why you think I would be floored by this....Of course this is the reason for their trustworthiness....but that very stability of light shows us that light traveled a long ways and thus the universe is old.

irgconflict wrote:

Every physical law, every force, every equation we use we use it understanding that it is trustworthy. Every sense we have we depend upon. We build bridges, buildings, interact with each other, build safety regulations with the understanidng of time and space. But now you get to say that we trust our ouw bodies and brains that God gave us?!?

I would go further and say that we, based on trail and error have learned to do these things over the centuries and have proven these mesurements to be reliable and falsifiable in our immediate surroundings in our immediate time frame. That doesn't prove that time and space weren't divinely manipulated by our Supreme Creator. For example, who are we to say whether time existed as we know it or at all during the creation process? We can only speculate as to how it was done. But we know how long He decided to take doing it. Again see Gen 1:1.

I wouldn't disagree with you here....God can certrainly do what we wants and certainly has the power and might and glory to do so. HOWEVER, if He had done so, why would'nt this be measureble?

And to be honest, I don't even quarrel with this as a theory this is, however, completely untestable. I will still maintain that if this is our idea, that we trust our senses, then how can we even trust our reality?


However....what I DO quarrel with is the blatantly ridiculous fudging of data to make it support our ideas. You say the Old Earth creationists "presuppose" and yet young earth creationists do the very same thing. YOu presuppose that Genesis can ONLY mean 6000-10000 years and this make the data fit your "presupposed" conclusion.

irqconflict wrote:

You can certainly say that from God's perspective and from outside time, perhaps hisorically we don't understand the operation of time and yes, could this distort our understanding? Sure....but that is NOT to say that our current understanding does not point to an old age.

Conversely, you could say that our current understanding points to a younger age as well. There is plenty of evidence to support this. Here, Some articles you may find enlightening.

No, you cannot say that. I have read a lot of these YEC over the years, so I do not need to be enlightened. The "data fudging" of young earth creationism is primarily fear based, needing to justify an unreasonable fear based on a misconception of Genesis. The challenge stands for EVERY test on that list I provided. Discredit every thing on that list.

irqconflict wrote:

Either our basic senses are trustworthy and God gifted us with brains and senses that can trust our findings or He didn't.

Here again you are presupposing that our measurements at this point in time accurately reflect the past.

I don't disagree with this.....Again, I don't mind saying that our understanding of time and space might change in the future. I don't even mind the idea that God could have manipulated time and space, although the same problem holds true for your ideas as well. In other words, if we cannot trust our measurements of time and space for an OLD universe conclusion, then how can we trust ANY measurements for ANY conclusion about the age of the earth. And if this is the thrust of your argument, then I am fine with that. What I DO disagree with is the idea that we can use CURRENT understanding to support young earth.

With yours and dad's ideas...the basic conclusion seems to be that we cannot trust ANY of our data, rather than any conclusion based on the data. For if God manipulated time and space to such a degree that our measurements do not accurately reflect ANY understanding of past, then we cannot trust YEC data as well. (other than God's word....which if we don't need to validate it, then we bother investigating? Do you see my point? IF data about the past canont be trusted, then YEC data can't be trusted and so why bother even trying to figure any of this out at all?)

irqconflict wrote: Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Umm, your point? It seems (and I sincerely hope I am wrong) that you are saying that anybody who pays any attention to any science that supports an Old Earth is following the flesh and carnality. I charge that this is remarkably irresponsible use of the scripture. Please clarify here or you are implying a horrible thing. What a horrible charge to the many Christian scientists, doctors, and laymen who believe in the innerrancy of the scripture, the historical accuracy of the scripture (I would claim that I believe in the "literal" translation of Genesis. ) and simply believe that God's testimony in His word and the testimony of His creation reveal the same testimony, that of an old earth.

irqconflict wrote:

I said to take ALL of the pieces of evidence, not just one.....you must discredit all of them and find multiple sources, not just one.....

According to my watch, I simply don't have time.

then you have no argument besides throwing dubious data from YEC sources and then claiming that ultimately we "just don't know" . Well, I can concede that, but we should simply throw in the towel and not even bother with any YEC or OEC data.

irqconflict wrote:

I would say you are the one distorting scripture, here, Irqconflict. You are saying that God deliberately placed a universe in which it's own testimony cannot be trusted. God is, in effect, testing us, to see whether we believe Him or our own senses. Well, scripture in the psalms, Job, Genesis, points to the creation as an accurate testimony to God. I am not trusting the world's idea;s, i am trusting His creation.

I'm sorry but it doesn't look that way to me. This 'testimony' you speak of is based on mans assumptions and presuppositions. NOT the Word of God.

No, the testimony is GOD"S CREATION!! Either God's creation is trustworhty testimony of evetns or it isn't. It is based on multitude of tests (tests that you refuse to refute) based on the simple idea that God's creation is trustworthy. If it is not, then we should just give up and not bother, for we shall never be able to figure it out. In which case, you should n';t rely on YEC data either.

irqconflict wrote:

YOu are the one not looking at context of scripture, the usage of morning and evening does nOT have to point to 24-hour days, check the articles on the use of morning and evening.

You are correct. It does not have to point to a 24 hour period. But in the context of Gen 1:1; thats exactly what it does point to.

NO it doesn't....

irqconflict wrote: Edit: I would like to add that if the translators found the word 'yom' in the context of anything but a literal 6 day creation the English would reflect that and we would end up with something like this:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first thousand years.

But it doesn't, it says:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice also that it is singular not plural.

Further the Bible declares:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31)

[/quote]

Don't know why you include the last few. OEC's do not "Add" to the word, merely seek to understand the context in light of God's creation (again, either we trust HIs creation or we should simply not bother at all). Nor do we charge that God's word is not pure, nor do we think God's word will pass away, nor do we seek to not presenrve them . It seems a silly bunch of verses to include when we do not seek to remove any heart from the Genesis story, neither do we seek to remove any innerreacny from the scripture.

Obviously you have not read the article.....it addresses those very things....please read it. Otherwise we have no dialogue

dad, sorry this might be a little off topic and maybe I'm an IDIOT for asking this, I haven't quite read all of this topic, but are you Christian? From the little I've read I can't tell. Sorry I hope you aren't offended at the question. It looks like you might be a Christian, just with doubt about Genesis 1. I'm curious ha.

zoegirl wrote:I don't know why you think I would be floored by this....Of course this is the reason for their trustworthiness....but that very stability of light shows us that light traveled a long ways and thus the universe is old.

My statement, courtesy of Captain Obvious was not meant to 'floor you'.

I wouldn't disagree with you here....God can certrainly do what we wants and certainly has the power and might and glory to do so. HOWEVER, if He had done so, why would'nt this be measureble?

Hmmm, a presupposition that all things need to be proven under mans microscope in order for it to be the way Genesis describes it to be? How many other things in life do we see that we cannot necessarily quantify?

However....what I DO quarrel with is the blatantly ridiculous fudging of data to make it support our ideas. You say the Old Earth creationists "presuppose" and yet young earth creationists do the very same thing. YOu presuppose that Genesis can ONLY mean 6000-10000 years and this make the data fit your "presupposed" conclusion.

Where Genesis is concerned I presuppose nothing. I take God's Word at face value and where He tells me He created in 6 days I stand on that Foundation. My observations, when necessary come second(ie lack of data). Not the other way around.

No, you cannot say that. I have read a lot of these YEC over the years, so I do not need to be enlightened. The "data fudging" of young earth creationism is primarily fear based, needing to justify an unreasonable fear based on a misconception of Genesis. The challenge stands for EVERY test on that list I provided. Discredit every thing on that list.

I am unaware of any blatant 'data fudging' (lies) of fear mongering within the YEC community. Please link a source.

With yours and dad's ideas...the basic conclusion seems to be that we cannot trust ANY of our data

I can't speak for dad, but where I'm coming from is that we cannot always trust our fallible and limited devices and intellect to 'measure God' especially when it conflicts with Scripture.

2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

irqconflict wrote: Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Umm, your point? It seems (and I sincerely hope I am wrong) that you are saying that anybody who pays any attention to any science that supports an Old Earth is following the flesh and carnality. I charge that this is remarkably irresponsible use of the scripture. Please clarify here or you are implying a horrible thing. What a horrible charge to the many Christian scientists, doctors, and laymen who believe in the innerrancy of the scripture, the historical accuracy of the scripture (I would claim that I believe in the "literal" translation of Genesis. ) and simply believe that God's testimony in His word and the testimony of His creation reveal the same testimony, that of an old earth.

Yet you deny the context in which the literal 6 day Creation was put forth. You cannot manipulate Scripture to promote your world view and then tell me you believe in a literal interpretation. It is fleshly and carnal to do so. Your measurements seem to tell you that the earth is older than what Scripture states therefore you and ALL the other OEC will sacrifice Gods Word on the alter of human endeavor.

"I will not believe unless I thrust my hand in your side" -sound familiar?

irqconflict wrote:I said to take ALL of the pieces of evidence, not just one.....you must discredit all of them and find multiple sources, not just one.....

Ok. Genesis.

No, the testimony is GOD"S CREATION!! Either God's creation is trustworhty testimony of evetns or it isn't. It is based on multitude of tests (tests that you refuse to refute) based on the simple idea that God's creation is trustworthy. If it is not, then we should just give up and not bother, for we shall never be able to figure it out. In which case, you should n';t rely on YEC data either.

No, the testimony is Gods Word. Not data. Both YEC and OEC data can be wrong.

YOu are the one not looking at context of scripture, the usage of morning and evening does nOT have to point to 24-hour days, check the articles on the use of morning and evening.

You are correct. It does not have to point to a 24 hour period. But in the context of Gen 1:1; thats exactly what it does point to.

NO it doesn't....

No it doesn't what? This is where OEC has a problem. It's not the data but the Word.

irqconflict wrote: Edit: I would like to add that if the translators found the word 'yom' in the context of anything but a literal 6 day creation the English would reflect that and we would end up with something like this:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first thousand years.

But it doesn't, it says:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice also that it is singular not plural.

Further the Bible declares:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31)

Don't know why you include the last few. OEC's do not "Add" to the word, merely seek to understand the context in light of God's creation

Just trying to show that Gods Word is preserved and He doesn't change. OEC do add to it. Billions of years to it.

(again, either we trust HIs creation or we should simply not bother at all).

We should never trust our observations above what He has stated. We trust Him.

gogobuffalo wrote:dad, sorry this might be a little off topic and maybe I'm an IDIOT for asking this, I haven't quite read all of this topic, but are you Christian? From the little I've read I can't tell. Sorry I hope you aren't offended at the question. It looks like you might be a Christian, just with doubt about Genesis 1. I'm curious ha.

Yes, I am a Christian, and a bible believer. I have no doubts whatsoever about Gen 1. The universe was created 6000 years ago.

zoegirl wrote:
I don't know why you think I would be floored by this....Of course this is the reason for their trustworthiness....but that very stability of light shows us that light traveled a long ways and thus the universe is old.

Only if it was this present light traveling in a present state universe. That is not in any way known to science.

And to be honest, I don't even quarrel with this as a theory this is, however, completely untestable. I will still maintain that if this is our idea, that we trust our senses, then how can we even trust our reality?

Don't trust it too far. We are blind to the spiritual aspects, and what you are trusting, is temporary anyhow.

However....what I DO quarrel with is the blatantly ridiculous fudging of data to make it support our ideas. You say the Old Earth creationists "presuppose" and yet young earth creationists do the very same thing. YOu presuppose that Genesis can ONLY mean 6000-10000 years and this make the data fit your "presupposed" conclusion.

Actually, I don't think so. The compromise theories came about in the last several centuries. Before that, who really started second guessing how long Adam lived, or what a day or morning was??

I don't disagree with this.....Again, I don't mind saying that our understanding of time and space might change in the future. I don't even mind the idea that God could have manipulated time and space, although the same problem holds true for your ideas as well. In other words, if we cannot trust our measurements of time and space for an OLD universe conclusion, then how can we trust ANY measurements for ANY conclusion about the age of the earth. And if this is the thrust of your argument, then I am fine with that. What I DO disagree with is the idea that we can use CURRENT understanding to support young earth.

Because the age of the earth was not arrived at by science!

With yours and dad's ideas...the basic conclusion seems to be that we cannot trust ANY of our data, rather than any conclusion based on the data. For if God manipulated time and space to such a degree that our measurements do not accurately reflect ANY understanding of past, then we cannot trust YEC data as well.

Yes we can. Because this universe was observed since history began.

No, the testimony is GOD"S CREATION!!

No, it is not. It is the temporary state of creation we find ourselves living in at the moment.

Don't know why you include the last few. OEC's do not "Add" to the word, merely seek to understand the context in light of God's creation (again, either we trust HIs creation or we should simply not bother at all).

You need to know what it is first. So far you assume that what we live in, is the created state of creation.

That is great to hear dad. sorry I didn't mean to doubt or anything, I just wasn't sure. Well I'm happy for you man, Jesus is great!

gogobuffalo wrote:That is great to hear dad. sorry I didn't mean to doubt or anything, I just wasn't sure. Well I'm happy for you man, Jesus is great!

Right. My ideas all need to be looked at in that light. Cheers.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

zoegirl wrote:I don't know why you think I would be floored by this....Of course this is the reason for their trustworthiness....but that very stability of light shows us that light traveled a long ways and thus the universe is old.

My statement, courtesy of Captain Obvious was not meant to 'floor you'.

I wouldn't disagree with you here....God can certrainly do what we wants and certainly has the power and might and glory to do so. HOWEVER, if He had done so, why would'nt this be measureble?

Hmmm, a presupposition that all things need to be proven under mans microscope in order for it to be the way Genesis describes it to be? How many other things in life do we see that we cannot necessarily quantify?

No, not at all. The statment was made that God could have manipulated time and space so that our understanding is incorrect. I merely state that if He "fast-forwarded" time and space in some way, I would think we would see this in the measurements....much like examining the actual length of a VHS and examining how long it took.

THings don't ned ot be proven to be believed, my faith does not rest on this; HOWEVER, if God's creation is a trustrworthy account of Him, then what it says should not be dismissed so lightly. And if all of our measurements point to an old universe, then either OUR understanding of His word is incorrect or OUR understanding of His creation is incorrect.

irqconflist wrote:

However....what I DO quarrel with is the blatantly ridiculous fudging of data to make it support our ideas. You say the Old Earth creationists "presuppose" and yet young earth creationists do the very same thing. YOu presuppose that Genesis can ONLY mean 6000-10000 years and this make the data fit your "presupposed" conclusion.

Where Genesis is concerned I presuppose nothing. I take God's Word at face value and where He tells me He created in 6 days I stand on that Foundation. My observations, when necessary come second(ie lack of data). Not the other way around.

Except that you stop thinking about the other possibilities of Genesis 1. The Hebrew language is a lot more complex than the English one in Geneisis 1. You are locked into this idea that it couldn't be anything else.

irqconflict wrote:

No, you cannot say that. I have read a lot of these YEC over the years, so I do not need to be enlightened. The "data fudging" of young earth creationism is primarily fear based, needing to justify an unreasonable fear based on a misconception of Genesis. The challenge stands for EVERY test on that list I provided. Discredit every thing on that list.

I am unaware of any blatant 'data fudging' (lies) of fear mongering within the YEC community. Please link a source.

Gladly, in a rush right now....

irqconflict wrote:

With yours and dad's ideas...the basic conclusion seems to be that we cannot trust ANY of our data

I can't speak for dad, but where I'm coming from is that we cannot always trust our fallible and limited devices and intellect to 'measure God' especially when it conflicts with Scripture.

Not disagreeing here...but I am not "measuring God", but rather examining His creation....and incidentally NOT dismissing any scripture in doing so. In this regard I think the are all a bit two-faced. we are willing to trust science in medicine, engineering, space travel....I think it is a bit of a slap in the face of God, to be honest. "YOur creation is so trustworthy that I am willing to entrust my life to the physical laws that you have ordained...oh but wait, not in that"

irqconflict wrote: 2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Love the verse, in this case I completely agree with you.....that is why I have examined the Hebrew and exmined the science out there and I have found them to be in harmony. God's word is true and innerrant and God's creation is true and innerrant.

irqconflict wrote:

irqconflict wrote: Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Umm, your point? It seems (and I sincerely hope I am wrong) that you are saying that anybody who pays any attention to any science that supports an Old Earth is following the flesh and carnality. I charge that this is remarkably irresponsible use of the scripture. Please clarify here or you are implying a horrible thing. What a horrible charge to the many Christian scientists, doctors, and laymen who believe in the innerrancy of the scripture, the historical accuracy of the scripture (I would claim that I believe in the "literal" translation of Genesis. ) and simply believe that God's testimony in His word and the testimony of His creation reveal the same testimony, that of an old earth.

Yet you deny the context in which the literal 6 day Creation was put forth. You cannot manipulate Scripture to promote your world view and then tell me you believe in a literal interpretation. It is fleshly and carnal to do so. Your measurements seem to tell you that the earth is older than what Scripture states therefore you and ALL the other OEC will sacrifice Gods Word on the alter of human endeavor.

I am not manipulating scripture. Yom can mean a series of days. There are PLENTY of biblical scholars who agree with us here. YOU have not examined fully and yet laughably stick to the idea of what contradicts HIS creation.

irqconflict wrote: "I will not believe unless I thrust my hand in your side" -sound familiar?

And do you notice???? Jesus did not rebuke Thomas but rather allowed HIm his doubt. Did you ever think that God wants us to examine? That is was our job to be curious in the Garden? To be good stewards of His creation? I am not doubting His word, but do seek to understand the testimony of His word and His creation. Look I am happy that you are content in believing in a Young Earth. More power for you than you are content with that. But what saddens me is that while we do not take awaw from the innerrancy of God's word, you accuse us of being bad Christians.

irqconflict wrote:I said to take ALL of the pieces of evidence, not just one.....you must discredit all of them and find multiple sources, not just one.....

Ok. Genesis.

Nope, YOU say that the data points to a YE...now you are switching your argument? My challenge was to your statment regarding the measurments that you then seem to say are reflective of a young earth.

Genesis 1 can be indicative of a long age.....

irqconflict wrote:

No, the testimony is GOD"S CREATION!! Either God's creation is trustworhty testimony of evetns or it isn't. It is based on multitude of tests (tests that you refuse to refute) based on the simple idea that God's creation is trustworthy. If it is not, then we should just give up and not bother, for we shall never be able to figure it out. In which case, you should n';t rely on YEC data either.

No, the testimony is Gods Word. Not data. Both YEC and OEC data can be wrong.

Ok, but you hav yet to address the article.

irqconflict wrote:

YOu are the one not looking at context of scripture, the usage of morning and evening does nOT have to point to 24-hour days, check the articles on the use of morning and evening.

You are correct. It does not have to point to a 24 hour period. But in the context of Gen 1:1; thats exactly what it does point to.

NO it doesn't....

No it doesn't what? This is where OEC has a problem. It's not the data but the Word.

No it doesn't need to mean 24 hour days. Checkl the article out.

irqconflict wrote: Edit: I would like to add that if the translators found the word 'yom' in the context of anything but a literal 6 day creation the English would reflect that and we would end up with something like this:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first thousand years.

But it doesn't, it says:

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Notice also that it is singular not plural.

Further the Bible declares:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)

Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 4:1-2)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31)

Don't know why you include the last few. OEC's do not "Add" to the word, merely seek to understand the context in light of God's creation

Just trying to show that Gods Word is preserved and He doesn't change. OEC do add to it. Billions of years to it.[/quote]

Must I say it again? According to Biblical scholars, the account of Genesis 1 (GOD"S WORD) can mena a long time. WE are NOT adding anything to scriptrue, but looking to exmine the language fully. Of course His word is preserved, absolutley. Does that mean that we don't occassionally get it wrong? Of course not....WE are fallible, not God's wrong.

irqconflict wrote:

(again, either we trust HIs creation or we should simply not bother at all).

We should never trust our observations above what He has stated. We trust Him.

Again, if His word means and old earth, then we are trusting BOTH His word and HIS creation.


Are you going to ead the article??

Dad, irqconflict.

How old do you think the earth is? Give me an age.

Off the cuff. Close to 7000 years.

I haven't done much in the way of research of genealogy. But I think I need to slow down. I have read Rich Deem's article before. A Yom time ago.

But as I believe this is the crux of the OEC/YEC debate I will for the time being direct my dialog at that particular issue. I don't want to get into a debate on measurements just yet to try and keep it as simple as possible. Maybe dad can tackle the accuracy of the testing methodology whilst I endeavor to run with the syntax and context thingy?

As I have stated previously and is as far as I know it's common knowledge that Yom can and does mean more than a day, just as it can and does mean a literal 24 hour period. But in the context of Genesis it means a literal 24 hour period. Realistically the word itself means nothing more than a period in time unless of course you surround that word with content that denotes or points out that time frame and is exactly what we see in Genesis.

You would be wrong to claim most scholars agree that the Genesis account refers to periods longer than a literal day. I'll leave a few links for you to digest and I'll get back to you in a couple of days.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

zoegirl wrote:Dad, irqconflict.

How old do you think the earth is? Give me an age.

6000 years or so.

Okay, I've finally read through everything now, and there's a few comments I'd like to make. Currently I am in a high level statistics and probability course. Now, mathematics is the most accurate thing mankind has ever came up with - more accurate than scientific calculations in labs. When you run scientific experiments and such, there is always experimental error, and even though it is very small at times, it is always there. IF you keep all the decimal places in mathematics, and the calculations are done correctly, there is no error (unless of course the numbers that were used for the calculations had error, but that is not what I'm talking about). Well, in my statistics course, they have pushed very hard that you NEVER extrapolate beyond your data. What does this mean? This means that you shouldn't apply the rules, rates, or whatever for your current time span, and apply it before or after your time span to predict data. It is extremely inaccurate most of the time, and there is no way to prove that it will be accurate. For example, on a test I had earlier this year, you had to explain why extrapolation beyond your data is dangerous, and we had a problem that was a graph of men's records time in the 400. IF you extrapolate beyond your data, in a few years beyond what the data was the record would be like 30 seconds, which is humanly impossible, and further on it would be 10 seconds. And if you extrapolate into the past, you would say that the record a hundred years beyond the data would be like an hour, obviously humans have always been able to run a 400 faster than that. Now I know this is one example, but it is true most of the time with extrapolation. Well, if we cannot extrapolate beyond our data in mathematics, the most accurate concept man has developed, why can we do this with science? By looking at it this way, I think dad and IRQConflict bring up very good points. Science and math are almost always related without conflicting eachother, and if this is the case here, then we cannot use our current data to predict things millions or billions of years in the past or future. I mean come on we've seen scientists do it hundreds of times! I've seen a movie made by a group of reputable scientists in the 1970's that said humans would start to die out like crazy by year 2000 because of overpopulation. OBVIOUSLY, this has not been the case. That is what extrapolating beyond the time table on your data can lead you to. I'm not saying that scientific predictions about the past are wrong, because personally I cannot know. But you must admit, zoegirl, that it is definitely a possibility (Not saying you haven't been). I will admit, that I must lean torwards YEC on this debate. I do think that even if you look at the Hebrew, (my pastor knows Hebrew, has never told me about OEC) that Genesis 1 points more towards a 7 day creation. I'm saying more towards, not saying it's the only possibility that can be drawn from the text.

Also, I have another point to bring up. Dad has brought this up several times, and he has been IGNORED everytime, unless I skipped what somebody typed. But if you read Genesis 1:9-19, it makes it very clear that plants on Earth were created before the sun. Plants on the third day, sun on the fourth day. Now, if these days are all millions of years old, we have a huge problem OEC. And, you can't say that translations has caused such a huge problem to mix up the order of these two. So . .. is the Bible just wrong here? I think you must say yes to support your theory, and wow saying the Bible's wrong . .. doesn't sound like a good idea to me, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now maybe there is a way for OEC to work around this, but I haven't seen one person voice it. So tell me, what is OEC's defense against the fact that Genesis 1 clearly states that plants were created before the sun.

Have fun with that, I look forward to hearing back from you.

Oh, and dad, I get a kick out of your name. I laugh everytime I type the word "dad." Calling someone I don't know dad .. . ha

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Did you read the day age interpretation page on the site? According to it, the sun was not created on the fourth "day", but rather the sun was not visible from the earth until the fourth day (when the translucent cloud was removed). We OEC's do not believe that plants (or even the earth) were created before the sun. We believe that the sun was already created along with the rest of the universe in the verse "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".