Evidence for God from Science

kateliz wrote:Please tell me something about this; I've never heard anything on it! What are the facts, and what theories are out there?

Hello kateliz...I made a formal introduction of myself in the creationist section of this forum.I am so glad I found this forum.....

When you ask questions, you have to references to the facts and theories you are asking about in order for one to answer a question.


Biological plant life? Sunlight.......

a very powerful argument for Creationism...

Check out my introduction everyone..I hope to meet the forum members and form friendships here.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Eye of newt, leg of dog, thigh of chicken, balls of man, left earlob of uncle buck, the remains of mastermind's brain, chlorox, and toilet water....and a dash of salt.

Mastermind, I would have thought you could have wrapped your mind around what I said:

And my theory is that all life was created, not evolved

Guess, not. My view is the 6 days that I get out of Genesis 1, the plants and animals made in the order that is said.

I have. I still don't see the method of creation God used here. HOW DID GOD CREATE THEM? That is the question you need to answer if you expect science to take you seriously.

How did God manage to have you ask how God created?

I must make up a way to supernaturally make life? That's not scientific to begin with, since it naturally excludes the supernatural. And I'll never take a scientist serious, since we're on the lines of seriousness, when he says that order arose out of chaos, and information out of matter....

Define chaos.

This was copied and pasted from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp


"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'
Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years. "

I really like that method, when it comes to arguing that the bible is getting tired because of a new scientific theory, I'll gladly through the new theory out and stick with the Good Book. It's pretty simple and I enjoy the looks I get from the educated who can't believe how naive I am for believing the bible over the science book.

Many very brilliant scholars (Believers and non), are of course, on both sides of that argument as they are on all of the other interesting ones. So again, I align myself with the side that MAY err for 6 literal days of creation.

CountryBoy wrote:This was copied and pasted from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp


"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'
Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years. "

I really like that method, when it comes to arguing that the bible is getting tired because of a new scientific theory, I'll gladly through the new theory out and stick with the Good Book. It's pretty simple and I enjoy the looks I get from the educated who can't believe how naive I am for believing the bible over the science book.

Many very brilliant scholars (Believers and non), are of course, on both sides of that argument as they are on all of the other interesting ones. So again, I align myself with the side that MAY err for 6 literal days of creation.

Even if there was no History of Humans being on this earth it does not mean the EARTH is Young. I still believe the Bible tells us the Earth is old and that interpretation is scripturally Sound.

Bizzt,

Well then, it's like I said, there are very gifted scholars on both side of that argument, Me on one side and You on the other.

Later on brother

CountryBoy wrote:"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'
Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any hint at all for millions or billions of years. "

I really like that method, when it comes to arguing that the bible is getting tired because of a new scientific theory, I'll gladly through the new theory out and stick with the Good Book. It's pretty simple and I enjoy the looks I get from the educated who can't believe how naive I am for believing the bible over the science book.

Although you've been quite candid in saying there are those on both sides towards the end of your message, I can't help getting the impression that somehow you see the OEC Day-Age position as still being unbiblical. Since you've taken time to quote AiG, I'd just like to take some time to state some predominant Christians on my side of the fence.

I'll just repeat what I've said elsewhere, which is I've come across many YECs who claim their position to be "the" Biblical position, as though their "interpretation" is God's word. But such people fail to understand that there are also other Biblical positions other than a young earth, and ones have been upheld by the Evangelical Council of Biblical Inerrancy. Mind you, Theistic Evolution, a form of OEC, has been rejected by this same council as being inconsistent with Scripture (and I would agree with its rejection). However, the Day-Age (aka Progressive Creation) position is very different and has been embraced by this council and many well known Christians including James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Billy Graham, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, J.P. Moreland, Greg Koukl, Gleason Archer, John Ankerberg, Hank Hannegraff ("The Bible Answer Man"), Jack Hayford, and many others.

Kurieuo.

Of course, if I think my side is biblical, it would lead to me, at least lean towards, your's as not. It's not that I think that's from lack of verses that you may have to back up your OE arguments though.

I think it's all in how we are interpreting the scriptures. I had time to read the Ankerberg arguments (I used to watch his show all the time and loved it) and hope to be able to read the others too. I don't think it had to take Adam that much time to name the animals. I think God could put him to sleep and remove his rib without an incision in a twinkling of an eye, I think God created Adam as mature and thus could creat immature plants and mature them in a heart beat...etc. etc. etc. You see where I'm going with this right? I don't think any of Ankerbergs OE arguments are holding any water any more than you think AIG's YE arguments hold any water.

I'm not saying I could never be convinced, my mind has changed in the past. But nothing I've read leads me towards OE more convincingly than YE.

Thanks for the links...I'll try to get time to read some more of the OE belief arguments. I'm open to godly advice and leadership...as long as it's backed up by scripture. I really don't mind at all if science negates it.

CountryBoy wrote:I think it's all in how we are interpreting the scriptures. I had time to read the Ankerberg arguments (I used to watch his show all the time and loved it) and hope to be able to read the others too. I don't think it had to take Adam that much time to name the animals. I think God could put him to sleep and remove his rib without an incision in a twinkling of an eye, I think God created Adam as mature and thus could creat immature plants and mature them in a heart beat...etc. etc. etc. You see where I'm going with this right?

Not really? As I also think Adam named animals, although the point wasn't so much the naming, but for Adam to realise he lacked a partner. I also believe God created woman from Adam's side, and that Adam was created as a man... so I really don't see where you think you're going with all this?

Kurieuo.

If I read your post right, you don't see where I'm going with all this was in response to my remarks about Ankerburgs OE arguments.

Where I was going was simple, they don't hold water to me...that's all.

I reread it and it still seemed very straight forward to me. Are you trying to read into my thoughts and motives and thus missing the straight forword english in my posts If so, then maybe that explains why the simple message in God's word seems to confound you Maybe you should simplify your research methods!

1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;


Just read my words, I'm not trying to cleverly hide meaning in the text.

Mastermind wrote:Define chaos.

3 a : a state of utter confusion
b : a confused mass or mixture
c : you

<b>3 a : a state of utter confusion
b : a confused mass or mixture
c : you</b>



Is the following sequence chaotic?

114214751894

Chaos as defined by science is a state of matter or energy in which it is in a complete state of regularity, like:

The crystals in a rock.
Gas filling up a room.
More complex substances breaking down into more regular ones.