Evidence for God from Science

Storyteller wrote:


Didn`t say I`d believe it did I?

Just said I`ll look, open mind and all that.

If I`m going to look into the possibilities then I need to be fair and at least read up on the Gap Theory before I discount it (which I probably will!)

Annette,

Please don't say you'll discount it before you look at it. That's not really an honest way to study, now is it?

Read what I put Rick!

I said probably.

I will study anything and everything with an open mind.

So there!

Anything?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Go on then, give me some links to look at

Here is one.This is probably my favorite and even brings geological science into things.
http://www.kjvbible.org/

And I like this one too and from this one you can find more links to other Gap theory web sights.
http://www.evogenesis.com/blog.html

Have skimmed through the first link, will read it properly along with the other link later when I have more time. Will get back to you on this ACB.
Even if I do discount Gap Theory, I still appreciate the debate and I love reading differing views.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

To be fairest Rick, please also mention that no one thought of it, until we discovered fossils, rock dating methods and (for the sake of your agreement ) micro-evolution.

Ann, its not the interpretation which is important, rather how ones gets the interpretation. For instance if your interpretation runs counter to author's intent, then you have an interpretation, but a wrong one.

And if the author's intent wasn't to show how long it took for God to create, then believing the text allows for an OEC interpretation does not run counter to the author's intent.

If that had been the case there would be no dispute. But that isn't so, 500 years ago you and me both would have had no trouble accepting the YEC interpretation, as far as scripture is concerned. You know why? because there was no such thing as OEC merited in the scripture. This position was made so that the science findings and the biblical claims could be aligned, as close as possible.

There was something said elsewhere on here along the lines of - science is still trying catch up with God's works. I don't think it reflects badly on OEC that it's a recent theory - in the past scripture was interpreted according to what was known at the time, which I'm sure was fine as the time frame was not the most important aspect of the creation account. I really liked the video someone posted a while back explaining it in connection with the theory of relativity - perhaps in the beginning the universe was very compact (as modern science tells us) and therefore a day was a very long time; as the universe stretched out time got shorter.

Kurieuo wrote:If you go with YEC, then you basically have to believe God made everything in a way we interpret to be old.
That's a line an old poster here took (Felgar), and that is what I believe Jac believes.
Kind of like how Adam and Eve were adults at one day old rather than babies.

God created Adam from dust and breathed life into him. If Adam was created as a baby who took care of him while he was growing up? He didn't have any parents to do the job.

Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs and was made for the purpose of being Adam's wife. Did Adam have to wait years for her to grow up before he could marry her?

If God created Adam and Eve as adults why couldn't he create a fully functioning earth with plants and animal life in six days?

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
And if the author's intent wasn't to show how long it took for God to create, then believing the text allows for an OEC interpretation does not run counter to the author's intent.

neo wrote:
If that had been the case there would be no dispute. But that isn't so, 500 years ago you and me both would have had no trouble accepting the YEC interpretation, as far as scripture is concerned. You know why? because there was no such thing as OEC merited in the scripture. This position was made so that the science findings and the biblical claims could be aligned, as close as possible.

No dispute? I disagree. Some, including you, believe the author's intent was to show the universe was created in 6 twenty-four hour days. And some believe that wasn't the author's intent.

500 years ago? Heck, not much more than 5 years ago, I believed in YEC.

Neo,
If the author's intent was to show that God created the heavens and the earth, and that God wanted to convey a 6 to 1 template of work to rest, then the author's intent wasn't to convey YEC nor OEC.

OEC was always allowed by the text because of the multiple meanings of yom. So, by saying OEC is allowed or compatible with the text, isn't the same as saying OEC was the author's intent. Like I said, what if the age of the earth wasn't even part of the intent of the author?

Rick, I am not looking for agreement, there are reasons why I find it a thin argument and not likely plausible.

1. Moses audience wasn't looking for a pattern, they were people who were born into slavery in Egypt and they needed solid answers to life's biggest questions. All they had seen was the Egyptian religion and that was why they were so keen on getting the calf made and worshiped because that was what had influenced them most. They needed to know this story and thus have their own religion and origin story.

2. You don't get the pattern until you jump pretty late in the N.T not until you get to the author of Hebrews (whoever that may be) but not until then can a theological angle like a 6-1 day pattern of work and rest could be established. So its impossible for Moses to have written it that way since he didn't know the author of Hebrew, nor could say that Christ was the eternal rest.

Today you see the pattern, because you have had 2000 years of mature theology, you know the creation story, Moses and the Hebrews who got out of Egypt had none, nor were they looking for one, nor the story of Genesis makes it one.

So you are basically concluding, even if you don't like it, for reasons above, that Moses himself did not know what he was writing about.

Your take on the matter is a classic example of reading into the text, which in this instance, is that you assume that the 6-1 days pattern must have been what Moses had in mind based on what you read in the Hebrews, a book written after 1400 years, but you only think this in hindsight and Moses would have never known about this at all.

You may not agree which I can understand but I thought I should point out these reasons and why is this bad Hermeneutics.

Storyteller wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Go on then, give me some links to look at

Here is one.This is probably my favorite and even brings geological science into things.
http://www.kjvbible.org/

And I like this one too and from this one you can find more links to other Gap theory web sights.
http://www.evogenesis.com/blog.html

Have skimmed through the first link, will read it properly along with the other link later when I have more time. Will get back to you on this ACB.
Even if I do discount Gap Theory, I still appreciate the debate and I love reading differing views.

Well I think you should take your time as there is a lot of info to digest when it comes to the gap theory and the first link I posted I hope that because he prefers the KJV bible it does not turn you off to the info he gives.The gap theory is easier seen in a KJV bible however it is in any translation and I've learned how to defend the gap theory using any translation,also not all gap theorists read the KJV bible as you'll see if you dig into it enough.It is not necessary.Also if you have any questions as your researching let me know and I'll see if I can help.

Neo wrote:
Rick, I am not looking for agreement, there are reasons why I find it a thin argument and not likely plausible.

That's fine. As long as I think you are understanding what I'm saying, I will listen to your reasons.

1. Moses audience wasn't looking for a pattern, they were people who were born into slavery in Egypt and they needed solid answers to life's biggest questions. All they had seen was the Egyptian religion and that was why they were so keen on getting the calf made and worshiped because that was what had influenced them most. They needed to know this story and thus have their own religion and origin story.

I believe the main point of Genesis 1 was to show that God was the creator of the heavens and earth, including humanity.

2. You don't get the pattern until you jump pretty late in the N.T not until you get to the author of Hebrews (whoever that may be) but not until then can a theological angle like a 6-1 day pattern of work and rest could be established. So its impossible for Moses to have written it that way since he didn't know the author of Hebrew, nor could say that Christ was the eternal rest.

The 6 to 1 pattern is first mentioned in Genesis 1, in the creation days. How you can say that "You don't get the pattern until you jump pretty late in the N.T not until you get to the author of Hebrews" is beyond me. And whether Moses fully realized the implications of what God told him to say, really isn't crucial to what he wrote. Saying an OT author had to be fully aware of all meaning of what he wrote, just isn't true. That would mean that any OT writer who wrote about a Messianic prophecy, would have to have known that prophecy would be fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.

Today you see the pattern, because you have had 2000 years of mature theology, you know the creation story, Moses and the Hebrews who got out of Egypt had none, nor were they looking for one, nor the story of Genesis makes it one.

The 6 to 1 pattern is there in Genesis, for anyone to see. Whether Moses' audience was aware of it, or even looking for it, really doesn't matter.

So you are basically concluding, even if you don't like it, for reasons above, that Moses himself did not know what he was writing about.

I believe Moses didn't know the full implications of all he wrote about. And I have no problem with that.

Your take on the matter is a classic example of reading into the text, which in this instance, is that you assume that the 6-1 days pattern must have been what Moses had in mind based on what you read in the Hebrews, a book written after 1400 years, but you only think this in hindsight and Moses would have never known about this at all.

No. That's just not accurate. Like I said above, what God was telling Moses to write, was that God was the creator of the heavens and earth, including humanity. I'm not saying Moses was fully aware of the 6 to 1 pattern he was writing about.

You may not agree which I can understand but I thought I should point out these reasons and why is this bad Hermeneutics.

I hope I made it a little clearer as to what I'm actually saying. It's certainly different than what you thought I was saying.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/hyperna ... s-miracles

This link (Hypernaturalism) is another "newer" category of creation... a sample ?

Hypernaturalism might be considered a form of progressive creationism. We define it as the extraordinary use of natural law by the God described in the Bible. Hypernaturalism postulates that when God created the universe ex nihilo (from nothing), He also created the laws of nature. He integrated natural law into the created order to make a universe with what has been called “relative autonomy.”1

I really enjoyed the article and found a new admiration for the progressive creation stance...

EssentialSacrifice wrote:http://www.reasons.org/articles/hyperna ... s-miracles

This link (Hypernaturalism) is another "newer" category of creation... a sample ?

Hypernaturalism might be considered a form of progressive creationism. We define it as the extraordinary use of natural law by the God described in the Bible. Hypernaturalism postulates that when God created the universe ex nihilo (from nothing), He also created the laws of nature. He integrated natural law into the created order to make a universe with what has been called “relative autonomy.”1

I really enjoyed the article and found a new admiration for the progressive creation stance...

I'm not closed off to progressive creationism and I do find it interesting but here is the problem I have with it.It has to do with evolution,you see even if a person rejects evolution and I think most creationists do,you still have a problem accepting science and trying to blend it into the bible.

This is a real sticking point for me and that is evolution which all other science is based on,now if you reject evolution like I do,then how can you accept all the rest of science that is all based on evolution? I'm not convinced based on the evidence scientists use as evidence to demonstrate life evolves is evidence life evolves.

Also the church has been using the wrong creation interpretations against evolution and have had no effect at all,when I believe had the church been using the Gap theory and it was out in front being used to counter evolution? Evolution would have been defeated long ago and we would not have all of this other science that shows the universe evolving into existence.

It is very frustrating to me because evolution could have been defeated long ago but the church IMO was using the wrong creation interpretations against it and had no effect and it has caused everybody to just bite the bullet and accept science all based on evolution.

For what it's worth, ACB, I think everyone here can relate to someone's insisting on blindly holding for both theological and apologetic reasons to a wrong interpretation of biblical account of creation.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

EssentialSacrifice wrote:http://www.reasons.org/articles/hyperna ... s-miracles

This link (Hypernaturalism) is another "newer" category of creation... a sample ?

Hypernaturalism might be considered a form of progressive creationism. We define it as the extraordinary use of natural law by the God described in the Bible. Hypernaturalism postulates that when God created the universe ex nihilo (from nothing), He also created the laws of nature. He integrated natural law into the created order to make a universe with what has been called “relative autonomy.”1

I really enjoyed the article and found a new admiration for the progressive creation stance...

I'm not closed off to progressive creationism and I do find it interesting but here is the problem I have with it.It has to do with evolution,you see even if a person rejects evolution and I think most creationists do,you still have a problem accepting science and trying to blend it into the bible.

This is a real sticking point for me and that is evolution which all other science is based on,now if you reject evolution like I do,then how can you accept all the rest of science that is all based on evolution? I'm not convinced based on the evidence scientists use as evidence to demonstrate life evolves is evidence life evolves.

Also the church has been using the wrong creation interpretations against evolution and have had no effect at all,when I believe had the church been using the Gap theory and it was out in front being used to counter evolution? Evolution would have been defeated long ago and we would not have all of this other science that shows the universe evolving into existence.

It is very frustrating to me because evolution could have been defeated long ago but the church IMO was using the wrong creation interpretations against and had no effect and it has caused everybody to just bite the bullet and accept science all based on evolution.

Jac3510 wrote:For what it's worth, ACB, I think everyone here can relate to someone's insisting on blindly holding for both theological and apologetic reasons to a wrong interpretation of biblical account of creation.

Yeah but the big difference is if the Gap theory is true? Then it means every bit of the evidence in the earth that has all been looked at and examined by science from an evolution point of view,it means all of this evidence has been looked at wrong and that it is really evidence of a former world that existed that perished that was overlooked because of evolution.

I'll be upfront.If you choose to accept the Gap Theory then you must reject how science observes the evidence in the earth,because the evidence is proof that a former world existed that perished and has nothing to do with life evolving.But if you choose to go with science all built around and based on evolution then you are accepting science all based on evolution.You do have to choose.Science or the Gap theory interpretation.We have a lost world nobody knows about because of evolution and it was a Lord of the rings type world too if we look at and examine the fossils.