Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sat Jul 03, 2010 12:09 pm**

The text says that Adam was created brand new. If we tested him, he would have tested brand new. Exactly what we would expect. The light from distant stars and galaxies tests old, but your Bible interpretation says that it should test new. The same thing goes for the rocks on earth. Even young-earth scientists agree that they test old. Tell me why.

Hello Dayage, Yes the biblical texts tell us that Adam was created brand new. But it may not be necessarily true that if we tested him that his cells would test the same as a newborn infants. Maybe his telomeres was shorter? When Criminologists look at dead bones they can tell you how old a person was when they died. If Adam was a fully grown male he was capable of producing sperm to create new life. These are things we just do not fully know the answer to.

Then you do not believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You must then also believe that the light traveled millions and billions of light years to get to us. Now you must tell me how that happened, when the light itself says that it traveled that far, but at only 186,000 miles per second. You said you agreed and they said light could not be put already in the space between us and the stars, so how could it get here so fast yet tell us it took so long? Explain the information within the light.

Well this is a complicated issue as well, another question that we do not fully have the answer to. But I opt to think that if Adam and the other things that G-d created “appeared” to have been aged (fully matured), its also possible that this applies to the planets, stars and light in the Universe as well.

How would one determine the age of Adams viable sperm verses the age of ex nihilo sufficient stars, or for that matter "light"?

There is more that one has to also consider. There are subtle clues imbedded within the text, for instance… how could the sun be created on the 4th day and still have light 3 days before it when there wasn't any sun? Genesis 1:5 - In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters. And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light. And G-d saw the light, that it was good: and G-d divided the light from the darkness. And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:16-19 - And G-d made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and G-d saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So as we read light was already established on the first 24 hour day, but the actual Sun was not created until the 4th day. What is the purpose and meaning for two lights? G-d knew you would ask that question! His message here is so spiritually important that an “extra light” existed prior to the actual creation of the sun itself because G-d is telling us that it is Him alone and His light that sustains us and not actually the material sun itself. The creation of the actual sun by G-d was only a supplemental afterthought. It's not fixed, necessary or essential, only G-d is essential. Try to explain that one to science or astronomers, they will look at you like you are wacko or something. But you know, there are other sources that light can come from such as friction or sonoluminescence which is created by intensive sound waves. Light can also be created from chemical reactions, atomic fission and fusion and also by fire. Just saying…

Something to this effect is mentioned in the New Testament in Revelation 21 and 22 that there is no more need of the sun or moon but G-d Himself will provide the illumination for the future New (and eternal) Jerusalem all by Himself. Revelation 21:11 - Having the glory of G-d, and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Revelation 22:23-24 - And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of G-d did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. Revelation 22:5 - And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord G-d giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. What's even more interesting is that this was prophesized about before-hand in the Old Testament by the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah 60:19 - The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy G-d thy glory.

This clearly indicates to us that since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning. Therefore thee is no need in even trying to estimate the age and distance of light in the Universe, because it all becomes null and void once we figure out that G-d is the eternal light.

So these are things we need to consider. I don't proclaim to know all the answers, but common sense tells me that we are overlooking something REALLY important!

Posted: **Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:25 pm**

Hello Meyer,

Hello Dayage, Yes the biblical texts tell us that Adam was created brand new. But it may not be necessarily true that if we tested him that his cells would test the same as a newborn infants. Maybe his telomeres was shorter? When Criminologists look at dead bones they can tell you how old a person was when they died. If Adam was a fully grown male he was capable of producing sperm to create new life. These are things we just do not fully know the answer to.

First, appearance is not what is important. It is what the evidence says when age indicators are measured. I remember guys and gals in middle school that looked like juniors and seniors in high school.

If Adam was brand new, his telomeres should be longer, because the wear and tear that comes with aging shortens them.

I for one would be shocked to find growth rings in Adam's teeth that indicated that he had been living for a couple of decades. This would be a direct contradiction of the Bible's statement that he was just created.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2192519

Since you are saying that we can not know about Adam's possible "age indicators," then you can not claim the appearance of age. Again, appearances mean nothing. I can find a rock on the ground, but I can not tell by looking at it how old it might be. But, if I find two rocks in a river and one is smooth and the other has sharp edges, I know the smooth one has been in the water a much longer period of time.

So, what is important are how things measure, not how we think they look.

How would one determine the age of Adams viable sperm verses the age of ex nihilo sufficient stars, or for that matter "light"?

Sperm take around 10 weeks to fully develop inside the male reproductive system. After they reach maturity they swim in and are nourished by the semen. If they remain in the testis, they will normally remain viable for around four to five days. So, testing Adam immediately upon creation should have shown all sperm to be immature, or at least we should find no dead or dying sperm.

We can make measurements on the light:
Light from stars (and galaxies) tells us about the objects chemical composition, temperature, pressure and velocity.

The light also tells us about its journey:
One breakthrough came in 1995 when astronomers first detected the time dilation effect in a certain class of supernovae (giant star burnout explosions). They found that very distant type Ia supernovae, located a few billion light years away, took about 10 percent longer than nearby type Ia supernovae to proceed through their eruption phases (from normal brightness to maximum brightness to minimum brightness). Now, in 2003, astronomers can observe more than a hundred type Ia supernovae, some as distant as eight billion years. The slowing they see matches the predictions so well as to give them overwhelming support for their model—the universe has indeed been continuously expanding for nearly 14 billion years.
http://www.reasons.org/time-dilation-at ... ion-models

The time dilation occurs because the universe is expanding. So, the light from supernovae is telling us that the space between us and it is stretching. The light also tells us how fast the universe was stretching at different epochs in its history. It has been stretching at different rates at different times.

Dr. Ross, in his book "A Matter of Days," shows that star light and galaxy light give direct indications of their travel distance. The spectral lines are broadened in direct proportion to the distance traveled. This is caused by the light traveling through randomly moving gas clouds. The longer the distance, the more clouds the light encounters and therefore, the broader the spectral lines.

Likewise, the radiation between the spectral lines, called continuum, becomes redder as the light travels through dust. The more dust the redder the continuum. Again, this is in direct proportion to the distance traveled.

Also, in this book Dr. Ross shows that by measuring the wavelength positions of certain spectral lines astronomers can determine the value of the fine-structure constant. This constant depends inversely on the value of the velocity of light. In doing these measurements, astronomers have shown that the velocity of light has been constant, could not have changed by more than 1 part in 100,000 over the last 11 to 12 billion years. The research is not saying it did change by this much, but this was an upper limit to any possible change.

Another thing, this does not only apply to visible light. It applies to all electromagnetic wavelengths coming from the distant objects. So, why would God make light waves (UV, infrared, etc.) measure old when our eyes can not see these wavelengths naturally? Everyone, including young-earth astronomers agree, the universe measures old.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:56 am**

Author Anita Meyer wrote:
The text says that Adam was created brand new. If we tested him, he would have tested brand new. Exactly what we would expect. The light from distant stars and galaxies tests old, but your Bible interpretation says that it should test new. The same thing goes for the rocks on earth. Even young-earth scientists agree that they test old. Tell me why.
Hello Dayage, Yes the biblical texts tell us that Adam was created brand new. But it may not be necessarily true that if we tested him that his cells would test the same as a newborn infants. Maybe his telomeres was shorter? When Criminologists look at dead bones they can tell you how old a person was when they died. If Adam was a fully grown male he was capable of producing sperm to create new life. These are things we just do not fully know the answer to.

Then you do not believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age. You must then also believe that the light traveled millions and billions of light years to get to us. Now you must tell me how that happened, when the light itself says that it traveled that far, but at only 186,000 miles per second. You said you agreed and they said light could not be put already in the space between us and the stars, so how could it get here so fast yet tell us it took so long? Explain the information within the light.
Well this is a complicated issue as well, another question that we do not fully have the answer to. But I opt to think that if Adam and the other things that G-d created “appeared” to have been aged (fully matured), its also possible that this applies to the planets, stars and light in the Universe as well.

How would one determine the age of Adams viable sperm verses the age of ex nihilo sufficient stars, or for that matter "light"?

There is more that one has to also consider. There are subtle clues imbedded within the text, for instance… how could the sun be created on the 4th day and still have light 3 days before it when there wasn't any sun? Genesis 1:5 - In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of G-d moved upon the face of the waters. And G-d said, Let there be light: and there was light. And G-d saw the light, that it was good: and G-d divided the light from the darkness. And G-d called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:16-19 - And G-d made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and G-d saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So as we read light was already established on the first 24 hour day, but the actual Sun was not created until the 4th day. What is the purpose and meaning for two lights? G-d knew you would ask that question! His message here is so spiritually important that an “extra light” existed prior to the actual creation of the sun itself because G-d is telling us that it is Him alone and His light that sustains us and not actually the material sun itself. The creation of the actual sun by G-d was only a supplemental afterthought. It's not fixed, necessary or essential, only G-d is essential. Try to explain that one to science or astronomers, they will look at you like you are wacko or something. But you know, there are other sources that light can come from such as friction or sonoluminescence which is created by intensive sound waves. Light can also be created from chemical reactions, atomic fission and fusion and also by fire. Just saying…

Something to this effect is mentioned in the New Testament in Revelation 21 and 22 that there is no more need of the sun or moon but G-d Himself will provide the illumination for the future New (and eternal) Jerusalem all by Himself. Revelation 21:11 - Having the glory of G-d, and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal. Revelation 22:23-24 - And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of G-d did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. Revelation 22:5 - And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord G-d giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. What's even more interesting is that this was prophesized about before-hand in the Old Testament by the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah 60:19 - The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy G-d thy glory.

This clearly indicates to us that since there will be no need for the sun as a light source in the future, it is certainly possible that there was no need for the sun as a light source in the beginning. Therefore thee is no need in even trying to estimate the age and distance of light in the Universe, because it all becomes null and void once we figure out that G-d is the eternal light.

So these are things we need to consider. I don't proclaim to know all the answers, but common sense tells me that we are overlooking something REALLY important!

Anita, In your translation beginning in Genesis 1:5, you are saying that the text is translated as the Sun wasn't created yet, but there was light. Many OECs believe the original text should be translated from a perspective of the author as being on the surface of the earth. That would not mean that there was no sun, but only that it wasn't visible from Earth's surface. This translation fits with science that says the stars including our Sun were here before the Earth was formed. As far as your saying that the sun was formed "ex nihilo", many OECs also believe that the sun wasn't formed ex nihilo. But the chemicals needed for the sun to form were created by God at the time of the Big Bang. By the Big Bang, all chemicals were created that eventually formed into everything physical in the universe. Isn't it amazing that God could have everything he used to form the universe inside a tiny point that He started in the beginning when He created the universe?

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:05 am**

Really counter productive that, what happened before the big bang can't be observed then isn't it?

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:32 am**

Kristoffer,

What do you mean? The Big bang was the beginning of matter, energy, space and time (space-time). What happened before lies beyond the universe. God started it, we just do not know how. The singularity theorems show that as long as a universe expands on average, it must have a beginning to space and time.
If gravity waves, from the origin, are detected, that will rule out colliding brains.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:18 am**

Kristoffer wrote:Really counter productive that, what happened before the big bang can't be observed then isn't it?

Counter productive to whom? If the Big Bang is true, like Dayage said, nothing "physical" existed before the Big Bang. We can't observe what didn't exist.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:33 am**

I for one believe in the big bang theory, GOD spoke and bang it happened!

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:56 am**

Author Anita Meyer wrote:
I hope you know I'm no evolutionist.

The Bible says that the earth was created "In the beginning," but needed to go through a process just to get to Genesis 1:2. You have not responded to this.
Dayage, If I could get a little clarification here since you claim to be "no evolutionist" while you also say that the Earth needed to go through a "process". To me you are indicating the word “process” as meaning a long period of time as in “evolution”.

I need clarification before I can respond properly?

All the Yom's used in the Bible are singular. It is used exactly 2301 times throughout the Old Testament and in every instance it is always used in a singular way.
I'll assume you misspoke, because yom in the plural (yamim) is used many times starting in Genesis 1:14.
No I didn't misspeak maybe you just misunderstood me? Anyhow, Yom is the singular and Yamin is the plural. These two words are clearly defined as days, but Yom for day, and Yamin for day's so that we can see they are distinctly two different words and that the Genesis days of creations are all using the singular Yom to indicate “single“ 24 hour days.

The fact that you believe in appearance of age is admitting that things really do look old. Why did God need to make it all look (AND MEASURE) so old?
I agree with AIG (Answers in Genesis).

Again, I need some kind of clarification here, its seems like we are attempting to say the same thing, but your replies to me are in question? You say Adam was not aged in the respect that he had no worn teeth, liver spots, or cell damage. You say that there is nothing there that could be tested to indicate age or anything new. And I agree with you here, however I am also saying that according to scripture Adam was created in a single day and was a fully formed mature man, therefore he had the appearance of age in that he was not a infant or even a child. He was mature enough to know that he needed a helpmate - Eve. This indicates that he was a mature man.

So with this, I am suggesting that if Adam had the appearance of age, so would the other things that G-d had created which includes single 24 hour days. The question remains, that today in science we do not know/have a starting point to calculate from. This may be why astronomers calculate the Universe and light is very old as it has the “appearance” of age. Of course the Universe would appear old if indeed G-d created it in the same fashion that He created Adam which already had the appearance of age. I do not believe that the Universe is really as old as science claims because of this "ex nihilo" G-d aged factor. Without a starting point science is essentially in the dark.

The only deception here is not fully believing the Bible - that Genesis is describing single 24 hours days! The Theory of Evolution demoralized us into thinking that we slowly evolved from some kind of creature. Thus this eliminates the aspect of G-d's influence in our creation. This country (including the world) is in serious trouble, as the scientific community advances religion is fading down the tube, and the “theory of evolution” is becoming more and more a threat!

In this new era people cannot fathom this perception because of all the scientific brainwashing, that has only served to put blinders over the eyes.

People laugh at the idea when I say that evolution is a dangerous idea, which BTW the theory of evolution has still never been proven! They comment and say that I'm uneducated and amateurish if I truly believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old when science has proven otherwise! FYI, science has not proven this!

We might as well kiss goodbye to any moralism left in this country including the world if this is truly the path one wants to take.

Lets take a real good look at what breaks down moralism… We can thank Charles Darwin for this. Charles Darwin was an agnostic. He lived his life believing in natural selection. He married his cousin and reared children with weak immunity symptoms. We can clearly see here that Darwin's denial of G-d had exposed his children to hereditary sickness. We can also clearly see that the spirit behind Darwin leads to many sinful things… racism, low tolerance towards other beliefs, customs, immorality, homosexuality, elitism. One can also say it legitimized Nazism and the Holocaust.

Jeffrey Dahmer was a product of Darwinism! One of America's most infamous serial killers who cannibalized more than 17 boys before being captured, gave a last interview with Dateline NBC nine months before his death, and he said the following about why he acted as he did:

“If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there was nothing….” (Dateline NBC, The Final Interview, Nov. 29, 1994).

It is clear to see what darkness is behind this claptrap. No dont confuse it with G-d's deception, but satan.

Anita, you seem to be doing the same thing that some prominent YECs do when talking about OEC. You don't understand OEC, before you argue against it. Because anyone believes in OEC, doesn't mean he/she believes in biological evolution. Because the universe is billions of years old, doesn't mean that it got that way by random chance. You said "the theory of evolution is becoming more and more a threat!" A threat to whom? I think YECs that claim to be Christian and misrepresent OEC, and think that their translation of the Bible is the only valid translation, is much more of a threat to unbelievers. Just think, people who study science, and come to the conclusion that the Universe is old, hear YECs say that the Bible says the universe is only @6000 years old. These people know that the universe is old, and that the "only valid" translation of the Bible says that the Universe is young. That tells them that the Bible is wrong, so they reject anything else the Bible says. Including Christ. So, because some prominent YECs are so dogmatic about their translation, people reject Christ. That is a shame, and could be avoided if some people weren't so afraid of the truth instead of trying to push their own agenda. Biological evolution may be Satan's deception. But, make no mistake about it, some YEC is making God out to be a deceiver as well.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:08 pm**

Hello everyone, all good points!

Since you are saying that we can not know about Adam's possible "age indicators," then you can not claim the appearance of age. Again, appearances mean nothing. I can find a rock on the ground, but I can not tell by looking at it how old it might be. But, if I find two rocks in a river and one is smooth and the other has sharp edges, I know the smooth one has been in the water a much longer period of time.

So, what is important are how things measure, not how we think they look.

But herein lies the glitch…

When Mount Saint Helens recently erupted in 1980 it taught us that just because a rock formation looks old, it is not. What took millions of years at the Grand Canyon (according to evolutionists), took one day at Mount Saint Helens. There are also a chock load of radiocarbon dates that register in the millions of years when we know they were just created by a recent volcanic eruption, like in Hawaii.

So there are pros and cons to these things to. These same instances may also apply to light from distant stars.

We also know that the Universe is expanding. The Bible indicates in several places that the Universe was stretched out (or expanded). Isaiah 40:22 - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. This clearly suggest that the Universe has actually increased in size since its creation, since astronomers have discovered that virtually all clusters of galaxies appear to be moving away from all other clusters - so indeed it is expanding! This in itself may suggest that light did not always travel at the same speed and may have been billions of times faster at the beginning, and eventually slowed down in transit after creation. And that could also well explain why star light that is not billions of years old is visible on the earth. G-d spread the light out from where the stars were “placed“ or He moved the stars from close to the earth to far away. This may also help explain the radiometric dates since most nuclear processes are mathematically related to the speed of light, a faster “c” might well mean a faster rate of radioactive decay, thus explaining much of the evidence used to substantiate the billions of years of geological dating.

Furthermore, when talking about the Universes' age… You hear the constant dispute thrown back and forth about what created the Universe? Some say it was the Big Bang and others even suggest that our Universe was spawned from a Universe before that. The argument is never ending! And it always seems to cancel out G-d. It almost seems pointless because no one seems to know the real answer to this. But to further assimilate such thinking, it's not about the Big Bang, or even where the notion of a Universe before the one we currently know came from. Its about ENERGY! And there is an answer to this, and its found in the law of entropy (thermodynamics) again. The laws of thermodynamics tells us concerning the universes beginning that if we go back in time the available energy will increase until it equals the entire (total) energy. We cannot go back any further because this is the point at which time and energy must have come into existence (at its highest quantity) beyond which it could have existed or it would have either obliterated or disintegrated, and since energy cannot create itself, both logic and science drives us to the conclusion that in the beginning it must have been G-d who created the one and only Universe. Therefore, according to the law of thermodynamics it could not have gotten its available energy by chance through time. It had to be designed.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:27 pm**

Author Anita Meyer wrote: Some say it was the Big Bang and others even suggest that our Universe was spawned from a Universe before that. The argument is never ending! And it always seems to cancel out G-d. It almost seems pointless because no one seems to know the real answer to this.

I'll never understand why young earth creationists believe that the Bing Bang is an argument against God.. For the record.. The Big Bang theory was started by a creationist... Furthermore the Big Bang fits beautifully into the Bible.. The universe had a beginning and God started it outside of time from a single source..

I think those that oppose it should really have their head examined. Sorry for the pun...

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:25 pm**

ANita,

Please provide your references for the radiometric dating of recent volcanic rock so that we may examine it...a link will suffice for me.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:43 pm**

Hello Zoegirl,

The Hawaiian volcano “Kilauea” was recorded to have erupted less than 200 years ago and the lava from this eruption was submerged under water. It was later dated to be 22 million years old. Other samples come from “Hualalai” which erupted in 1800 were dated to be 300 thousand million years old.

Its not just the rocks from the Mount St. Helens eruption, there are also numerous false readings from other known newly formed rocks such as from Mount Ngauruhoe (an active volcano) located in New Zealand. These rocks are known to have been newly formed from the eruptions starting in 1949 and they have been dated to be millions of years old.

Additionally, the erosional features at Mount St. Helens are not unique, but are similar to those observed elsewhere. Other examples of rapid erosion are: Lituya Bay, Alaska created in 1958... The volcanic island Surtsey south of Iceland created in 1964... Lake Peigneur, Louisiana 1980... A rain storm in southern Brazil 1974... The Waiho River of New Zealand 1965... Providence Canyon State Park near Lumpkin, Georgia 1820... The Imperial Valley of California by the Colorado River from 1905 to 1907 (the Salton Sea).

If you like you can do a Google search on these to see what you can find.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:15 pm**

I'll never understand why young earth creationists believe that the Bing Bang is an argument against God.. For the record.. The Big Bang theory was started by a creationist... Furthermore the Big Bang fits beautifully into the Bible.. The universe had a beginning and God started it outside of time from a single source..

I think those that oppose it should really have their head examined. Sorry for the pun...

There are problems with the big bang hypothesis. Red-shifts really do not support it since stars are moving away from us.

There are also things like light-travel time, missing antimatter, ripples of galaxies and young galaxies too old for the big bang. For instance a relatively recent discovery called the “Francis Filament” found a string of fully formed galaxies. It was here that astronomers calculated the super cluster (which is at the edge of the universe) was around 200-500(?) million light-years across.

The problem here is that it contradicts the evolutionary timescale. It seems that these galaxies exist when according to the “Big Bang” idea, they should not have had time to form.

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:15 pm**

Gman wrote:
Author Anita Meyer wrote: Some say it was the Big Bang and others even suggest that our Universe was spawned from a Universe before that. The argument is never ending! And it always seems to cancel out G-d. It almost seems pointless because no one seems to know the real answer to this.
I'll never understand why young earth creationists believe that the Bing Bang is an argument against God.. For the record.. The Big Bang theory was started by a creationist... Furthermore the Big Bang fits beautifully into the Bible.. The universe had a beginning and God started it outside of time from a single source..

I think those that oppose it should really have their head examined. Sorry for the pun...

I believe the reason that Anita and some other young earth creationists believe the big bang argues against God is because they don't understand old earth creationism. Please take the time to understand a theory before you argue against it! Anita, again you are misrepresenting what OECs believe. Please take the time to actually research old earth creationism. Maybe read "A Matter of Days" by Hugh Ross. At least you will understand what OEC is about. Then you can make your argument instead of sounding like an advertisement for Answers in Genesis. Anita, why don't you understand that someone can believe in God AND an old Earth?

Posted: **Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:50 pm**

Anita, why don't you understand that someone can believe in God AND an old Earth?

Look, I fully understand Rick. I just do not agree. I am at the mature point right now in my life where I've decided that if I am going to believe the Bible, it is going to be by its literal word. None of this wishy-washy business. I take it at face value - G-d's word! So far I've learned that the later is always prerequisite to the former.

When one starts picking it apart it looses value. You either believe what it says, or you don't. Its as simple as that.

If you believe that your OECs views are correct then challenge me with data, and not just by saying that I don't understand it.

Evidence for God from Science

The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science

Re: The Bible is light years ahead of science