Evidence for God from Science

Audie, just because you asked about ice cores and the age of the earth, and because it is so easy to link to AiG

https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... cores-old/

Jac3510 wrote:Audie, just because you asked about ice cores and the age of the earth, and because it is so easy to link to AiG

https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... cores-old/

Thanks, but I feel its best to look to original sources as a way to avoid slant.

Audie wrote:Who has a "right" to disregard what does not fit their agenda?

Everyone, don't you think?

Starhunter wrote:

Audie wrote:Who has a "right" to disregard what does not fit their agenda?

Everyone, don't you think?

Perhaps on some level, although a judge would not include that in jury instructions.

We'd hope the IRS agent looking at our taxes would not take that attitude.

I was using the term "right" in the sense of choice rather than obligation.
As you suggest, we all have the right to think as we want but we are obliged to act according to the overall right thing to do.

We have the right to dismiss whatever someone else believes, but not the right to act as though they have no right to dismiss our beliefs. It is natural in religious circles to use a belief as the basis for feeling justified or righteous, rather than relying on a genuine righteousness given freely by Christ without an unnecessary contribution from us.

I just want to say while it is fresh on my mind, Kurieuo pointed out that the Genesis account is neither scientific or theological, which is a good point, especially if one takes the Bible as God relating to the human race, and feeling included in that audience. It makes any academic approach - theological or scientific -obsolete, doesn't it? But he may have meant something else.

That makes sense, thanks.

Starhunter wrote:I was using the term "right" in the sense of choice rather than obligation.
As you suggest, we all have the right to think as we want but we are obliged to act according to the overall right thing to do.

We have the right to dismiss whatever someone else believes, but not the right to act as though they have no right to dismiss our beliefs. It is natural in religious circles to use a belief as the basis for feeling justified or righteous, rather than relying on a genuine righteousness given freely by Christ without an unnecessary contribution from us.

I just want to say while it is fresh on my mind, Kurieuo pointed out that the Genesis account is neither scientific or theological, which is a good point, especially if one takes the Bible as God relating to the human race, and feeling included in that audience. It makes any academic approach - theological or scientific -obsolete, doesn't it? But he may have meant something else.

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

Scripture, no more has the purpose of Theology in mind (study of God), than is does Anthropology (study of humans).

If wanting to relate it to any area, then I see that perhaps it is more a book of history mixed with narrative of God's relationship to humanity.

To theologise on one main narrative I see.
Through the history of Israel we see a holy God's desire for a relationship with us. In particular, how God overcame his righteous wrath (not "vengeful", but "righteous" because it is a deserved punishment) when faced with humanity's evil and constant turning away, to allow a way for his love and desire for us to be fulfilled via grace.

People are often confused by the God read in the OT, thinking God there is different from the New. The reason being they just don't see the overall narrative of God's own struggle between his righteousness and love for humanity.

BUT, notice I am here performing theology to draw out this narrative that I see in Scripture as a whole. This does not mean the purpose of the Bible is so people like me can theologise, but it does lend itself to such. Just like the Genesis creation.

I have never quite seen it that way before, and it is so true, the painful struggle God has with being unable to heal due to the persistent rebellion and ingratitude of sinners.
So the Genesis account is not so much about creation and things at all, but about the loving intentions of the Creator- the beginning of the story of love.
What an incredible history follows, how God's anger is hardly ever understood as coming from the pain of the unfulfilled good intentions for human kind.

Today in these last days in order to look for scientific evidence Genesis is true we really only have a few places to look really.Now if you look for evidence in secular science today you must understand that they are looking at all of the evidence in and around this earth from an evolution perspective,everything is interpreted from an evolution perspective.

This is totally wrong though if life does not evolve,man is totally wrong in his interpretation of the evidence because he is looking at everything as if life evolves.Evolution has influenced our world significantly to the point that even Christians have accepted it and try to make the bible fit around evolution,but there are Christians who accept a certain amount of evolution.But you must understand that you are totally wrong to allow yourself to be influenced by science today if life does not evolve.I do not accept evolution at all,and I know from understanding the gap theory what has happened.

Every since evolution became so popular after Charles Darwin everything in this earth,has been looked at and examined from the wrong perspective,this has caused even Christians to be influenced by this kind of interpretation but I'm here to tell you if the gap theory is true like I believe it is true,the evidence in this earth should've been looked at from a former world that perished perspective instead of an evolution perspective.

If the gap theory is true evolution science has blinded you to what the evidence proves true,and that would be Genesis 1 from a gap theorist perspective,in other words God's word is proven true and this is important for the world to hear to set the record state on how to interpret the evidence in this earth.We really only have from and evolution perspective or a former world that perished perspective today,when you think about it.

So are you going to continue to allow man to influence you when he is interpreting the evidence from an evolution perspective or are you going to allow God's word to influence you on how best to interpret the evidence in the earth from a former world that perished perspective?This totally defies evolution because science because of evolution teaches us that since the beginning of the creation since our fathers died all things have continued since the beginning and life has always been here over millions of years yet God's word in 2nd Peter 3:3-7 tells us this is not true,for man is ignorant of the gap of time between the former world and this world we live in now.