Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

The whole idea of God is laughable to the atheist, we are not trying to appeal to the secular crowd so the point is mute.

It may not have been meant as such, but I certainly would hope that Christians ARE trying to appeal to the secular crowd. Of course, but not to accommodate their false beliefs or dumb down or dilute the truth of the Gospel, but to make its message and contexts better understood, so as to touch their hearts and minds, to be open and receptive to Jesus. We have to constantly remember how strange, alien and out of touch this ancient collection of God's Scriptures must seem to unbelievers and others who don't understand its meanings. To them, Christians seem like superstitious and closed-minded people unwilling to realistically engage the modern world.

Yes your absolutely right, sorry if I was misunderstood.

I am currently undecided on my creation stance. On the one hand, I can see why some would interpret the bible as Y.E.C. On the other hand though, we don't know the true intent of the author of Genesis. However, none of these are essential doctrines for salvation. If salvation could come through the Y.E.C. views, than Jesus died for nothing, and everything Jesus said was also completely pointless. As I said earlier, Y.E.C.'s are not the problem. It's people that view the age of the earth as an essential doctrine for salvation.

You are very wise, that is what I feel is the correct position to hold based in what scroiture says.

Anyone who promotes a Christ AND Gospel is a false teacher and a legalist.

Stu wrote:
Uum no. YEC is what Christianity should be while OEC is Christianity bowing to fallible science. But that's my take. I think it's supposed to be 6 000 - 10 000 though.
I could argue that OEC has hurt Christianity.

And where did you get the idea that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old? That idea is certainly not stated in scripture.

Stu wrote:

Essentially if one picks up the Bible and reads for instance Genesis - reading it in isolation, most people would take it to mean literal days, no gaps.

Most people? You know this to be a fact?
And even if "most people" read it that way, does majority belief equal correct belief?

Stu wrote:
OEC has allowed the authenticity of the Bible to be questioned.

You say this, but you are not showing a logical reason why.

Stu wrote:
Introducing numerous alternate views allows for the Bible to be further questioned. If two massively opposing views (billions vs thousands of years) can be held then why can many other parts of the Bible not be interpreted in numerous other ways.

Because it's not a theological issue. It's a scientific issue. The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Science does. Nobody with half a brain cell says that the bible says the earth is billions of years old.
STOP CONFLATING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE!!!!!

The Bible today has become watered down because everyone and Jerry has their own interpretation of it.

The bible is not watered down. It's still the same truth it has always been.

Stu,

Please use your God given logic, and think about what you're saying.

jlay wrote:
Here are the problems as I see it.

The purpose of redemption and Christ's death is rooted in a literal fall from grace for mankind. Mankind being a special creation, who was provided a special place (eden) to relate to God. Not to mention, a literal Satan, etc.
Further, the simplest reading of Genesis 1 does better comply with YEC. And that doesn't mean I'm saying there aren't well developed arguments for OEC.

While I agree that to someone reading an English bible, the simplest reading of Genesis 1 does seem like YEC fits better, we all know the word translated as "day", has more than one literal meaning. And, PCs also believe mankind was specially created, so I don't see any reason for YECs to cry "compromise" against PCs on the issue of the fall of man.

Also, an old cosmos better complies with an atheistic worldview. That's a fact. In other words, if the earth is really only 6k-10k years old, then atheism falls flat on its face. Doesn't mean that OEC is wrong, only that is shares common ground with a foundational tenet of atheism. Theistic evolution even more so. Then for many in OEC, they believe in an old cosmos, but still hold to man being a special creation. This is absulotely laughable to the atheist.

An old cosmos better complies with an atheistic worldview? Evidence is evidence. Atheists and theists don't need spiritual discernment to see that.

If the earth is really only 6k-10k years old, logic falls flat on its face too.

For many YECers, they see special creation as foundational to the need for redemption. And so, yes, it can become a point of orthodoxy. They might say, "sure you can believe in billions of years and be a Christian." It just that for them, it doesn't seem to follow logically.

Again, PCs believe in special creation. So, this should not be an issue for YECs. As far as man being specially created, the fall of man, and redemption, the only difference between PC and YEC, is years. There really should not be an issue for YECs about this.

For many in OEC, i see a lot of manuevering to maintain their academic integrity. "Science says..." "The consensus says......"

That's because a lot of OECs don't believe there's a conspiracy against God, if someone says the earth is billions of years old.

At the end of the day, all Christians must believe that a dead man, who was actually God in the flesh, was raised back to life. There is no reconciling this with anything, scientifically speaking. So guess what. You still look like a damn fool to atheists whether you think the earth is 6k or 6 billion years old.

But we look like a fool because of Christ, not because we ignore the obvious, that the earth is not 6-10 thousand years old.

The OECer says, this is secondary, and it may very well be. But for the YECer, much of this appears to be granting authority to secular consensus, which for them weakens biblical authority, and ultimately corrupts essential doctrines. Certainly the age of the earth itself may not be secodary, but many would argue that it does undermine essential doctrine.

Then that would be the problem of the YEC that believes that. Since the bible doesn't give an age of the earth, that is not a theological issue. It's a scientific one. Maybe certain YECs should stop conflating science and theology.

In all my years on this forum, reading and studying the arguments, I can tell you that no one here, or even Hugh Ross himself, has convinced me that secular science isn't the ultimate authoritative lens for interpreting Genesis for OEC advocates.

What the H-E double hockey sticks is secular science? Is calling science "secular science" a way to discredit science?

OEC's lack biblical authority? Tell me what kind of people do have biblical authority. I see no verse in the bible stating the age of the earth. The 6-10k years old assumption was made by man. If we look into the Hebrew language, we find out that Hebrew has much less variation than English. Even if it was 6 literal days, the description of the earth in Genesis 1:1 shows us that God created the earth before the six days even began. Even though I am undecided on my creation stance, I can see where O.E.C's are coming from.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: The whole idea of God is laughable to the atheist, we are not trying to appeal to the secular crowd so the point is mute.

I think Philip answered this. We are to earnestly contend for the faith.

For many YECers, they see special creation as foundational to the need for redemption. And so, yes, it can become a point of orthodoxy. They might say, "sure you can believe in billions of years and be a Christian." It just that for them, it doesn't seem to follow logically.

Are you saying YEC is orthodoxy?

absolutely not. That is why i stated, 'for them.'

Another mute point, why would we care how we seem to atheists. My understanding of doctrine may be fairly simple but I have yet to see a good argument of how OEC weakens Biblical authority and corrupts essential doctrine.

It's moot not mute. please for the love of all that is good, mute means 'to silence.' Moot means debatable or irrelevant.

Science is not secular, another mute point.

Considering that I am directly related to three phd level scientists, I beg to differ. But fine, if you don't like the term, I won't use it. When 'science' requires certain presuppositions and refuses others then,.......

Why is this topic so divisive?

Sometimes I just wish this whole OEC/YEC debate was mute!

jlay wrote:Considering that I am directly related to three phd level scientists, I beg to differ. But fine, if you don't like the term, I won't use it. When 'science' requires certain presuppositions and refuses others then,.......

I can attest to this as well given my work as a hospital chaplain. I recently read a paper titled "A Theological Assessment of Spiritual Assessments" by Michael Balboni, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School. The whole paper is fascinating, but particularly relevant for this discussion is his point that there is no such thing as theologically neutral science. He very persuasively argues that science as it is practiced today makes a series of theological assumptions related to the Enlightenment, and worse yet, that these assumptions are intrinsically opposed to traditional Christianity (specifically, it holds a a theology of imminence). "Secular science" then is an important word, because "secular" identifies the theological approach to this particular type of science. And I can promise you that I see that theological paradigm at work every single day.

So this whole idea that we should just let science be science and keep theology out of it . . . frankly, when I hear it, I roll my eyes. You may as well tell me that we ought not philosophize. It's just self-defeating non-sense, drivel. And for the Christian, it's actually depressing to see, because we, of all people, ought to see that everything is theological. And yes, that includes science. And when Christians deny that, they are just denying their own heritage. Sad. Just sad.

Rick, it's divisive for a few reasons that may be offensive to some but need to be stated plainly:

1. YECs regard OEC as a compromise of biblical authority. And if we are right, it is (and I would say that even if we are wrong, it still is). That offends you, because you, as a conservative, Bible believing Christian, know that you need to uphold the authority of Scripture above all. So when you are told that you are compromising on that issue, it strikes at the very heart of your faith. And when that happens, you take it personally, and thus there is division.

2. OECs regard YECs as absurd and embarrassing. And whether you are right in your theology or not, you are right in that YEC makes embarrassing claims. So you have people insisting that YEC harms Christianity. And that, of course, is offensive to us, because the only thing we care about is Christianity. If we didnt, would we bother to hold to such a position? But, of course, your own embarrassment makes you divisive again.

The other reason this is so divisive is because people talk about it the wrong way. We waste our time talking about social implications of YEC or the scientific problems with YEC or, worse yet, historical arguments about the acceptability of OEC (arguments taht are, by the way, wrong, but that's beside the point). The only thing worth discussing in this debate is the hermeneutical question. The fact of the matter is that YECs have a different hermeneutic than OECs. OECs have, in recent years, tried to justify their views on the same hermeneutical grounds that YECs do, but it just doesn't work (and so the typical arguments that "yom" can literally mean a long period of time). And so you have the tired, and wrong, arguments that the English sounds like it supports YEC but that's just becuase it's English and that if you were to read it in Hebrew, it doesn't sound like that at all. But that's just not true, either.

So it's divisive because the only thing that matters--hermeneutics--isn't being discussed. If OECs would just admit that they have a different hermeneutic, then this wouldn't be nearly so divisive. But you don't (and you don't because you don't see it; I'm not accusing you of lying, just of being confused), and so the argument continues.

*dawns flame resistant suit*

I am starting to regret starting this thread. This thread is not here to debate who and who doesn't have biblical and theologan authority. This thread is here to discuss people who view that the Y.E.C. doctrine is necessary for salvation. Let me make that clear ( I'm sorry if I didn't already make that clear). If you want to be a Y.E.C., that's fine, but it is unnecessary to bash O.E.C.'s because they have a different viewpoint than you. If you do bash them because of that, than you are no better than Richard Dawkins and the militant atheists.

RickD wrote: While I agree that to someone reading an English bible, the simplest reading of Genesis 1 does seem like YEC fits better, we all know the word translated as "day", has more than one literal meaning. And, PCs also believe mankind was specially created, so I don't see any reason for YECs to cry "compromise" against PCs on the issue of the fall of man.

And you could be right. There may be no reason. i'm only stating what many YECers believe in this regard.

An old cosmos better complies with an atheistic worldview? Evidence is evidence. Atheists and theists don't need spiritual discernment to see that.

Yes, and YEC has the exact same evidence. I've never seen evidence that says, "made 4 billion years ago." Keep in mind that you are conflating interpretation to evidence. Not saying that the conflation is wrong, but it is conflation nontheless. If you say, "the evidence says" then you are committing reification. Evidence doesn't actually "say" anything.

If the earth is really only 6k-10k years old, logic falls flat on its face too

Depends on presuppositions.

Again, PCs believe in special creation. So, this should not be an issue for YECs. As far as man being specially created, the fall of man, and redemption, the only difference between PC and YEC, is years. There really should not be an issue for YECs about this.

Whether it should or shouldn't be isn't always that simple. It is.

That's because a lot of OECs don't believe there's a conspiracy against God, if someone says the earth is billions of years old.

And there are some who think that there is.

But we look like a fool because of Christ, not because we ignore the obvious, that the earth is not 6-10 thousand years old.

Well Rick, to be blunt, to YECers it doesn't look so obvious. I don't know about you but I'm not a physicist, an astronomer, a geneticist or an archeologist.
When I look at the world I don't see age. I only see the here and now. I don't have tools to measure the speed of light. I don't have a crystal ball to peer back in to time past. I have to take the 'consensus' opinion of science regarding anything 'obvious.' And therefore, that in itself is NOT obvious.
Wouldn't we say that, "since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly (obvious) seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Isn't that saying that God is OBVIOUS!! So, please direct me towards any mainstream science publication, whether in genetics, physics, biology; and show me where they recognize the obvious. And when you do, I'll concede the obvious age of the universe as billions of years.

Then that would be the problem of the YEC that believes that. Since the bible doesn't give an age of the earth, that is not a theological issue. It's a scientific one. Maybe certain YECs should stop conflating science and theology.

[/quote]
But ardent YEC do believe that the bible provides an age to the earth. And keep in mind, this conflation is also rampant in the OEC camp. The name of this board for pete's sake is "God and Science." People in glass houses......

Jac,

Right now, I only have one thing to say about your post. And I want to say it before jlay steps in and rips you a new one.

Jac wrote:
*dawns flame resistant suit*

It should be "dons", not "dawns".

YoungApolegist wrote:I am starting to regret starting this thread. This thread is not here to debate who and who doesn't have biblical and theologan authority. This thread is here to discuss people who view that the Y.E.C. doctrine is necessary for salvation. Let me make that clear ( I'm sorry if I didn't already make that clear). If you want to be a Y.E.C., that's fine, but it is unnecessary to bash O.E.C.'s because they have a different viewpoint than you. If you do bash them because of that, than you are no better than Richard Dawkins and the militant atheists.

I haven't seen any bashing here.

RickD wrote:Jac,

Right now, I only have one thing to say about your post. And I want to say it before jlay steps in and rips you a new one.

Jac wrote:
*dawns flame resistant suit*

It should be "dons", not "dawns".

Gud kech!

YoungApolegist wrote:I am starting to regret starting this thread. This thread is not here to debate who and who doesn't have biblical and theologan authority. This thread is here to discuss people who view that the Y.E.C. doctrine is necessary for salvation. Let me make that clear ( I'm sorry if I didn't already make that clear). If you want to be a Y.E.C., that's fine, but it is unnecessary to bash O.E.C.'s because they have a different viewpoint than you. If you do bash them because of that, than you are no better than Richard Dawkins and the militant atheists.

I actually don't know any YECs who make YEC a condition for salvation. Not even Ken Ham holds that view (in fact, it the debate with Nye, he expressly said it was NOT a matter of salvation). I'm not saying that NO YEC would make such a claim. I'm just saying that in all my years of studying and discussing this issue (and for what it is worth, I have three theological degrees and so have met a LOT of students and professors along the way), not one single YEC advocate I've met has ever made that claim. As such, I've been forced to conclude that the "bashing" argument is little more than a straw man.

*shrug*