Evidence for God from Science

That's why I don't seek out the debates. I don't go to the websites but I will gladly debate when one wants to. I happily stay here and talk here.

THe evil one's purpose was served, FL, not because of the debate, but because of false accusations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with debating.

I have no problem with somebody being YEC, I wish they didn't have a problem with us.

Furstien(ya yer name is really that difficult):

I am sure he just wishes to inform you of YEC. Does he wish to impose his beliefs, I hope and think not!

I notice how you charge him of sarcasm but not Zoe! Please if you have to be judge jury and executioner...At least be fair!

I will give cubsfan a chance to have his speak, politely disagree and make my own point. Yet listen so that we can at least understand what he is on about! He may be mistaken, but he is only human! You can't confront people who you believe to know wrong without knowing what they are talking about. Ignorance is worse than the knowledge you would obtain from understanding what it is you are so afraid of.

Sorry if you think I have offended you.

zoegirl wrote:THe evil one's purpose was served, FL, not because of the debate, but because of false accusations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with debating.

Yes, you are right on both points above (False accusations and there being nothing wrong with debating.) I stand corrected.

Cactus wrote:Furstien(ya yer name is really that difficult):

FL is easier. Try that!

Cactus wrote:I notice how you charge him of sarcasm but not Zoe! Please if you have to be judge jury and executioner...At least be fair!

I didn't see Zoegirl's sarcasm. Anyway, this is sterile and does nothing to build up the body of Christ. Let the better man stop throwing mud.

Cactus wrote: Ignorance is worse than the knowledge you would obtain from understanding what it is you are so afraid of.Sorry if you think I have offended you.

Where's my martini?

FL

cubsfan wrote:I think I agree with you, Gman, that Mr. Greene explains your viewpoint pretty well. The problem is, I am still waiting for someone to make a convincing argument, and I consider the motivations behind this viewpoint to be highly suspect. Naturalizing the Bible so naturalists will accept it is misguided and futile, both spiritually and practically. But there is a better way. Show them the ends of their own philosophy, preach the Word of the Gospel, that they can acknowledge that the God of the Bible has a message that transcends their philosophy. That message is that there is a God who draws you despite the fact you are a miserable sinner. If that message turns a person off, no amount of naturalizing the text will turn them on to that God. Cubsfan

And are you showing them the ends of their own philosophy with a 6 day creation? Although you say that you are pro God of the Bible, trying to stay neutral to the subject, you are still trying to present what you think is evidence for a literal 6 day creation. I don't buy it nor your smokescreen… Also who is naturalizing the Bible? Again, there is no concrete evidence for a literal 6 day translation of the Bible. Despite all your posts you still have not made a convincing argument otherwise.

You simply can't spot weld the Hebrew word yom to a literal day. That is the whole point. Sure you can read it in the English and say thus saith the Lord, but it is in the Hebrew where the truth is exposed.

More on yom here..
http://www.answersincreation.org/yom_hebrew.htm

Oh I really wasn't having much of a go at you FL it was just a gentle piece of criticism, not an attack on your charecter. Sorry if you saw it as such!

De Holey Bible wrote:PRO. 13:10 Pride leads to arguments; be humble, take advice and become wise

Not that you are unwise, I just think that there is a lot of growing for everyone to do in regards to wisdom. Is there any use sticking your thumbs in your ears and going "lalalala"

Ontopic.

However even though you might disagree I will have my say, I believe in a really old earth. You know...Billions of years. Perhaps they did not have a word for that big a number and/or could not really gauge the age of the earth back then.(well duh!)

I think that evolution can explain things, as long as it is not evolution[that is]just left alone to it's own devices. I do not think we should let[militant]atheist's hi-jack evolution as their own! You are welcome to disagree, but if you must...I pray that god is with you.

Hi Guys

I am a yound Earth creationist but do see "how" evolution could work. I see the data on both sides and we use the same data to support the theory. Although the theory should rightly be supported by the data if it is correct. But both sides do it the other way round. My philosophical question is, why is it so surprising that an all powewrful God could create in 6 days as opposed to Billions of years? Its not I believe and His miracles continue today. Why is it so surprising that he could create plants and the sun later? Do yuo think He made a mistake and was found wringing His hands wondering, what have I done? How can I fix it? Again I would say no.
Philosophical science and Religion see Truth and wisdom so they are compatibal and many men and women of faith are scholars and scientists. They make it work.
There are theories about star light such as that in the middle of a sun the light travels far more slowly. We always think light travels at a constant. It does not actually and there are numerous sites supporting this. So the light coming to us may actually not be billions of years old. There are also theories for white holes rather than just black holes.

ugo wrote:why is it so surprising that an all powewrful God could create in 6 days as opposed to Billions of years? Its not I believe and His miracles continue today.

Ugo, welcome!, glad you asked this.

Ugo, this is a common misconceptio YEC hold about OEC motives. They think that we believe what we believe because we feel that God couldn't do things in 6 days. But what we hold to is that GOd's creation is something that shows a true testimony to HIm and therefore the evidence should reveal a young earth if indeed HE created it in a short period of time. God could have created the universe in a nanosecond if He so choose to do so. He oculd have created it in 6 second, 6 minutes, 20 minutes, 20 days, 6000 years, or 6 billion or 20 billion. The time in which He created is not what reveals His power, and His power is such that He could have made it in nanoseconds. It is the universe itself that reveals the power and majesty of God. The point, though, is that the evidence should show this age unless one delves into the idea that God's creation does not show a true testimony.

If one holds that God's creation week cannot really be studied ("How do we know if the speed of light cahnged or our measurements are trustworthy" some people say) , if one wants to hold to that, go for it, but then really we can't trust ANY science in that case and the YEC scientists should stop trying as well.

But if one holds that GOd's creation reveals God and His majesty and His works, then studying the creation is simply a matter of studying HOW God did it, not because we think HE CAN"T do it, but because to study the creation is to really glimpse another story of God, much like we get a glimpse into an artist by studying the art. I would bet that if you were to talk to any Christian scientist and you would see someone who LOVES what they do because God's creation reveals daily HIs majesty and power.

ugo wrote:
Why is it so surprising that he could create plants and the sun later? Do yuo think He made a mistake and was found wringing His hands wondering, what have I done? How can I fix it? Again I would say no.

Of course not, no one here suggests that the creation account reveals a GOd that is surprised. "No plan of God's can be thwarted". Check out some of the main pages on the main site and you will be pleasantly surprised at how much we revere God's word. But, yes, we are surprised. BAsed on logic, commonsense, and just plain observation, this would not make sense. Now I know that the wisdom of God often appears foolish to man, but I think with regard to this scripture, people are VERY quick to throw their hands in the air, almost scared to examine this in case they are showing a lack of faith or "giving in" to the dreaded naturalists. And since when do CHristians run scared!!?!?

God could have easily made plants that first day without carbond dioxide and light and simply hold them in stasis or maintain them with His might. He certainly COULD have, but why would He? We understand that God created the universe and established HIs laws. Why would He go against these laws by creating an organism that require the sun before that sun was created. Again He COULD have, but why? Doesn't it fly in the face of everything we know of HIm? God is logical, GOd is a God of order, God established these laws, why would He?

Our God is bigger than anything man can drum up and all truth is HIS truth. If HIs creation reveals many many pieces of evidence that reveal a complexity or an older age, then we shouldn't be afraid of it. Now if people would prefer to just accept this incongruity, that's fine, I just don't think we need to immediately throw our hands up in the air with the proclamation that "God can do anything He wants to do!", to which we reply..."ABSOLUTELY He can!! But is that what HE DID?"

I think this especially comes off as giving up and resorting to the easy way out when scholars and people are quite willing to delve into plenty of other controversial scriptures or confusing scriptures. It's almost as if Genesis 1 has been taped off with yellow "POLICE: CAUTION" tape warning anybody from even examining it. "Don't you dare think about crossing this tape...God could have done this!!" when most aren't even calling into question His ability, but rather the simple question of what does the Hebrew say and what are some interpretations. And frankly, it comes off as fear....what are we afraid off? IS our faith in our God that small that He can't stand the scrutiny? Even Christ allowed and encouraged THomas to delve into the wounds, HE is not afraid of being examined.

ugo wrote:There are theories about star light such as that in the middle of a sun the light travels far more slowly. We always think light travels at a constant. It does not actually and there are numerous sites supporting this. So the light coming to us may actually not be billions of years old. There are also theories for white holes rather than just black holes.

And the speed of light is merely 1 in MANY many pieces of evidence that reveal age of earth.

Hi Zoegirl

You wrote heaps of which I agree with most of it.

I want to reply to specifically this:"If one holds that God's creation week cannot really be studied ("How do we know if the speed of light cahnged or our measurements are trustworthy" some people say) , if one wants to hold to that, go for it, but then really we can't trust ANY science in that case and the YEC scientists should stop trying as well."

I hope I did not come across this way but God's creation week must and should and can be studied. As you know science has theories and this is supported with evidence. WE trust what we know but all is not what it seems sometimes and science has shown us that before. What was true once later is not(as far as science goes) and of course many things hold true possible forever.(while not advocating relative truth principles)
As a YEC I encourage study and research of science and the Bible. We must question and pray. The central truths of our faith is Jesus, that He died for us, was ressurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father. Praise God!Alsoyuo stated,"The point, though, is that the evidence should show this age unless one delves into the idea that God's creation does not show a true testimony."
Assuming we can rightly view and interpret the reality presented. I am not advocating the philosopher Kants idea that we cannot know reality as this is contradictory as then how can we know the assertion about reality be true to begin with by Kant. The data or ecidence may show something else we have not understood or seen. For example dark matter is an interesting piece of relaity and data which may change how we view the "true" testimony of God's creation. Then go to the sub atomic level and things can change very quickly.
Your last bit I agree with totally.
"Our God is bigger than anything man can drum up and all truth is HIS truth. If HIs creation reveals many many pieces of evidence that reveal a complexity or an older age, then we shouldn't be afraid of it....God can do anything He wants to do!", to which we reply..."ABSOLUTELY He can!! But is that what HE DID?"

ugo wrote:Hi Zoegirl

You wrote heaps of which I agree with most of it.

I want to reply to specifically this:"If one holds that God's creation week cannot really be studied ("How do we know if the speed of light cahnged or our measurements are trustworthy" some people say) , if one wants to hold to that, go for it, but then really we can't trust ANY science in that case and the YEC scientists should stop trying as well."

I hope I did not come across this way but God's creation week must and should and can be studied. As you know science has theories and this is supported with evidence. WE trust what we know but all is not what it seems sometimes and science has shown us that before. What was true once later is not(as far as science goes) and of course many things hold true possible forever.(while not advocating relative truth principles)
As a YEC I encourage study and research of science and the Bible. We must question and pray. The central truths of our faith is Jesus, that He died for us, was ressurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father. Praise God!Alsoyuo stated,"The point, though, is that the evidence should show this age unless one delves into the idea that God's creation does not show a true testimony."
Assuming we can rightly view and interpret the reality presented. I am not advocating the philosopher Kants idea that we cannot know reality as this is contradictory as then how can we know the assertion about reality be true to begin with by Kant. The data or ecidence may show something else we have not understood or seen. For example dark matter is an interesting piece of relaity and data which may change how we view the "true" testimony of God's creation. Then go to the sub atomic level and things can change very quickly.
Your last bit I agree with totally.
"Our God is bigger than anything man can drum up and all truth is HIS truth. If HIs creation reveals many many pieces of evidence that reveal a complexity or an older age, then we shouldn't be afraid of it....God can do anything He wants to do!", to which we reply..."ABSOLUTELY He can!! But is that what HE DID?"

Ugo,

Currently this is how I would state my position...

Yes, science will always be a process and what we know now may be corrected by the discoveries of tomorrow. No scientist will ever dispute that, that is the bedrock foundation upon which observational science rests. Scientists are always faced with hypothesis that are proven false, in fact far more often then those that aren't. That's how it works.

We may yet discover something about the creation that reveals the universe to be younger. Great, praise GOd, wonderful. That being said....What I cannot agree with is that CURRENT science reveals a young earth. It doesn't. There may be more our there that we need to study, but everything, and there is A LOT, shows an old earth.

That is what I will disagree with you on. And sadly, much of what is presented as evidence of a young earth is, being generous, bad science and math, and not being generous? Plain deceptive and willfully wrong. I will gladly give you example after example of equations being manipulated so that the result favors a young earth. And no amount of "you got that wrong" is met with chagrin or correction (it has taken over 30 -40 years for YEC authorities to finally remove mood dust in most of their pile of evidence and you would still find some using it, some still use the Paluxy riverbed footprints!) And that both saddens me and disappoints me as a Christian. When we manipulate data so obviously and do so willfully reveals wat would appear to be fear on our part.

Might we discover something amazing? Sure...but the current data doesn't tell that story. See http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... verse.html for the exhaustive list of methods used. It's not just the speed of light.

If we want to rest our faith that there will be eventual evidence for it or that whatver the evidence says it can't reveal the full picture, I would far prefer that than the idea that the evidence says something it doesn't.


Glad you agree that we don't compromise on the power of God.