Evidence for God from Science

I sometimes wonder if AIG is secretly working for Richard Dawkins and the new atheists as a way to further turn people off to Christianity. Sort of like how the "Westboro Baptist Chruch" is designed to turn people off to Christianity and just make people's lives miserable. Sigh, I really hope that Rich Deem or Hugh Ross could win the lottery and be able to compete better with AIG, where in the heck did they get all this money to begin with?

A lot of fundamentalist Christians who know no better unfortunately.

We shouldn't make the same mistake and return to AIG the same attitude that they give to OEC believers. I take offense at some of their statements. I believe they are brothers and sisters in Christ. I just wish their was more love and willingness to enter a dialogue without the lack of humility as to the certainty of their position over others. Their fractuousness extends even to themselves internally as they have a history of conflict even with their own founding organization in Australia. Contentiousness in their cause appears to be a part of the organization and given that, it's not surprising that we're (OEC believers) are treated in a similar manner.

That said, they don't have the money for the Ark project yet. They are fundraising for it and last I looked the hadn't even raised the first million yet. If people want to give to that as a worthy goal and wish to support and further their goals and practices then they will.

I'm done for now drawing any more attention to them on this matter.

jlay wrote:

People will come out to see the amazing ark, and be bombarded with YEC rhetoric.

People will come out and be presented with a perspective from a YEC worldview.

Maybe, until one questions the YEC model as being the ONLY one that uses a literal biblical interpretation. Then the YEC rhetoric begins(OEC destroys the gospel, OEC makes Christ's sacrifice worthless, etc.) Jlay you posted this in another thread:

One issue I have with fellow YECers is when they espouse YEC as orthodoxy. And this may get back to the original point in the thread. Personally, I have never been able to satisfy my mind with 24 days, simply because of how we measure a 24 hour day. And since creation days were passing before a sun existed it creates quite a puzzle. But I also know that this is a problem with my mind and the impossibility of observation, and not evidence per se.

That's my point with AIG. They do say that their YEC view is the only one consistent with the Bible. That is the problem I have with AIG building the ark. If it were another YEC group that wasn't so hostile towards OEC, I wouldn't have the same reservations. On another note, I'm glad to see you're admission about how the Genesis days are difficult to see as 24 hours. All of us(YEC and OEC) need to be honest about where the problems lie in each worldview. One problem I have with some OECs on this board, is that thay are unwilling to admit that there are any problems in the OEC worldview. I came to study, and then believe that OEC is a better interpretation than YEC because of my finding out that yom can literally mean something other than 24 hours. Jlay, thanks for being honest about one reservation you have with your worldview. I wish I could find some OECs that are just as open about problems with an OEC worldview.

RickD wrote:I wish I could find some OECs that are just as open about problems with an OEC worldview.

RickD wrote: One problem I have with some OECs on this board, is that thay are unwilling to admit that there are any problems in the OEC worldview. I came to study, and then believe that OEC is a better interpretation than YEC because of my finding out that yom can literally mean something other than 24 hours. Jlay, thanks for being honest about one reservation you have with your worldview. I wish I could find some OECs that are just as open about problems with an OEC worldview.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "problems" that OEC'ers face, but for the record, no one has the absolute truth when it comes to God's creation. We simply don't know how it all happened, but project our most "plausible" answers..

yes, I think all of us would agree that OEC is just what the data presents...if new data shows differently there's nothing that prevents the conclusion changing.

Also why would God give us sciencetific minds in order to discover the awesomeness of his creation then deceive us claiming that all the evidence was false and just a test to see if you have any faith.

ST.

Great point ST.

Gman wrote:

RickD wrote: One problem I have with some OECs on this board, is that thay are unwilling to admit that there are any problems in the OEC worldview. I came to study, and then believe that OEC is a better interpretation than YEC because of my finding out that yom can literally mean something other than 24 hours. Jlay, thanks for being honest about one reservation you have with your worldview. I wish I could find some OECs that are just as open about problems with an OEC worldview.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "problems" that OEC'ers face, but for the record, no one has the absolute truth when it comes to God's creation. We simply don't know how it all happened, but project our most "plausible" answers..

What I mean is that imo OEC offers the best scientific and biblical explanation, but it's not without questions. The one that comes to mind for me is Genesis 1:29. I believe the text doesn't necessarily rule out people being carnivores, but it doesn't say it directly. I believe one major reason that people lived so long then is because they were primarily, if not totally vegetarian. The fact that in YEC, the sun wasn't created before the first "day", presents a problem for YEC. I'm just saying that I like to find the flaws in my own argument, so I can study them and see if they are actually flaws.

RickD wrote:

Gman wrote:

RickD wrote: One problem I have with some OECs on this board, is that thay are unwilling to admit that there are any problems in the OEC worldview. I came to study, and then believe that OEC is a better interpretation than YEC because of my finding out that yom can literally mean something other than 24 hours. Jlay, thanks for being honest about one reservation you have with your worldview. I wish I could find some OECs that are just as open about problems with an OEC worldview.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "problems" that OEC'ers face, but for the record, no one has the absolute truth when it comes to God's creation. We simply don't know how it all happened, but project our most "plausible" answers..

What I mean is that imo OEC offers the best scientific and biblical explanation, but it's not without questions. The one that comes to mind for me is Genesis 1:29. I believe the text doesn't necessarily rule out people being carnivores, but it doesn't say it directly. I believe one major reason that people lived so long then is because they were primarily, if not totally vegetarian. The fact that in YEC, the sun wasn't created before the first "day", presents a problem for YEC. I'm just saying that I like to find the flaws in my own argument, so I can study them and see if they are actually flaws.

I think what you describe is very healthy RickD. An unwillingness to self-examine and maintain some level of humility as to one's own beliefs and assumption leaves one unable to be taught and learn new things.

Data doesn't present anything. People analyze and interpret data.

If you have any raw data that presents anything, I'd sure like to see it.

RickD wrote: What I mean is that imo OEC offers the best scientific and biblical explanation, but it's not without questions. The one that comes to mind for me is Genesis 1:29. I believe the text doesn't necessarily rule out people being carnivores, but it doesn't say it directly. I believe one major reason that people lived so long then is because they were primarily, if not totally vegetarian.

What Genesis 1:30 is implying here is that plants are the top of the food chain for all animals as it is today.. In other words, if you take away plants all the herbivores and carnivores would die. Therefore plants really all the "meat" for all animals..

RickD wrote:The fact that in YEC, the sun wasn't created before the first "day", presents a problem for YEC. I'm just saying that I like to find the flaws in my own argument, so I can study them and see if they are actually flaws.

Yes, I believe that is simply a misunderstanding of the text because God already created light in Genesis 1:3. Also if you look at it in the Hebrew, it's a bit clearer. In the fourth day it doesn't say that God created the sun, moon and the stars. It states that he "made" them, which is the Hebrew word "asa" translated as the verb "made". When the Hebrew word "asa" is used it is usually used to denote an action already completed.

Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Genesis 1:16 simply does not specify when in the past the sun, moon, and stars were made. However in Genesis 1:1, it does says that it was created using the Hebrew word "erets" or "hashamayim we ha' erets," heavens (plural) and the earth (singular). "Hashamayim we ha' erets" consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe. All matter and energy and whatever else it contains....

Ok, now for honesty... For me, the only real problem I see with the OEC view is getting Christ's genealogy into a 50 thousand year lifespan. Most OEC believers believe that Adam was formed first on the earth some 40 to 50 thousand years ago and about 40 thousand years for Noah's flood... Now that is a long time to fit Christ's genealogy into that timelime.. Perhaps I see this the greatest problem for the OEC view..

jlay wrote:Data doesn't present anything. People analyze and interpret data.

If you have any raw data that presents anything, I'd sure like to see it.

way to pick at some nits....

It aint picking. It is a common logical fallacy. A version of reificaton. One that evolutionists fall into often. So, maybe you can understand why I'm frustrated to hear it within the Christian community.

Either way Zoe, it is an example of trying to justify one position and degrade another. The problem I have with it, is it is arbirtary and without real merit. Please name me one piece of data that OECers have access to, that YECers don't?
So what is the gist of this type of statement? I can't speak specifically for you, but I've seen this kind of statement often. And I think when you boil it all down it comes to, "OEC positions better comply with the secular worldview." Not that there is anything wrong with agreeing with secular positions. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We don't assume that all secular findings the work of the devil. But this isn't specific. It's ambiguous. And what it infers is that the OEC position is more legitimate because it better complies with secular scientific interpretations. (Although I would argue that as well. There are a litany of areas where secular interpretations of data are at odds with OEC positions.) Not only is it making faulty assumptions about data and what it can do. It also makes the error of assuming that secular positions are objective and have a high, if not final authority, even though no specific data is mentioned. As a teacher I sincerely hope you wouldn't use arbitrary statements regarding data like this in the classroom. Like I said, if you have any raw data that does what you are claiming, I'd love to see it.