Evidence for God from Science

Here is the problem, I see you say this, it seems to say that you are certain that the bible does not contain science.

The Bible was not intended as a primitive science manual that presented rudimentary scientific facts that would be verifiable at a later date when science caught up.

Which is why I said this.

The basis of the disagreement between Neo-X and myself here is that I believe that the natural world, if studied through science, and the bible, agree on what they say, and Neo-x does not.

But then you said this.

WRONG...I only said I didn't agree with your interpretation and I'm not absolute sure how it happened. I never said it is unscientific.

(I aded the smiley back in, i like smileys)
Does this mean that you are uncertain if the bible does or does not contain science that we might now, with our greater scientific knowledge, be able to see (when in the past they could not), or are you saying that you are absolutly sure that the bible does not contain science, specifically in Gen 1? This is just a question for clarification of your position, so that I do not argue against a position you do not hold.

The reason I beleive the literal interpreation is twofold. One, later parts of genesis are very definatly literal, talking about specific people and their actions. Second, when I compare the latest scientific facts and the more well backed theories (barring a time machine, that is all they are, however, some have rather a lot of evidence) with Genesis as literal, I see a match. Since I see no reason to say Genesis is not literal, and do see reason that it is, I go with the literal option, which also fits science, this giving it double evidence of literalness. (ok, thats not really a word, but...)

One other reason I beleive Gen is literal and science is Rom 1:20, I simply cannot see how it can be interpreted any other way, given the words and word order used, both in that verse and the ones around it. I see it like this (including context):
Rom 1:15 Paul wants to preach the gospel in Rome.
Rom 1:16 It is the power of salvation.
Rom 1:17 Through faith (specifically, faith that Jesus will take care of the rightousness problem, the definition of gospel).
Rom 1:18 Wrath instread goes to those without that faith, to the godless who supress the truth.
Rom 1:19 Godless despite that what is known of God has been made plain to them.
Rom 1:20 Since the foundation of the world, showing Gods invisible qualities, from what is seen, ie. that which is visible, and must therefore be the material world since it is contrasted with invisible, understood from that which has been made (that making being described in Genesis, which describes the foundation of the world), so that they are without escuse (for their godlessness since they can see the evidecne of the material world which shows evidence of Gods invisible qualities).
Rom 1:21 But even though they knew this (evidence of God from the natural world), they deliberatly decided to ignore it
Rom 1:22 And thus became fools.
And then it goes on to describe their specific foolishnesses (sins).

I simply see no other way to interpret this verse, in it's context, but from the words it uses. This is why I included that little Jack and Jill thing, I simply see no other way IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL WORDS USED, to interprate Rom 1:20, unless you use "deconstruction" to give you an excuse to basically assume, without evidence, the "intent of the author", and then put your own interpratation over it which basically simply ignores the actual words, their actual definitions, and gives them new definitions which are not in the language as written. Deconstruction is basically destroying the actual known definitions of the word and overlaying it with a new defination you make up from your assumed "intent of the author", which you cannot know except by the very words you just destroyed and ignored, that is why it is called de construct, to tear down and rebuild in your new image. Yet without a working time machine and the power of mind reading, your "intent of the author" is simply replacing the original meanings of the words with ones you make up from your own prejudices and modern ideas and biases. If you do not "deconstruct" the words of Rom 1:20 (and the verses before and after it), you are left with what you see above.

If you cannot supply an alternat interpratation, which takes into account the actual words used, an interpratation which I have not seen yet (leaving me soley with the actual words written to go by), I can see no other alternative than to beleive those words as written, since I have nothing else. Simply saying my interpratation is wrong without supplying an alternate interpratation, one taking into account the actual words used, is just saying "no it isn't", just as I said above. It can convince no one since you have not given a reason to be convinced.

Th eother reason I beleive you seem absolutly convinced that the bible, specifically Gen 1 and Job 38, are not science, is this whole water and comet thing. Many of your arguments don't make sense, or simply ignore what I said. Things that don't make sense:
No evidence for comet impacts on earth, ie not enough large craters.- What I am talking about, comet wise, is that there is water out there, not made by plants freeing up oxygen from water (or anything else), and that therefore when a bunch of rocks, come together to form this planet, some will have water (ice) on them. Thus, it is irelelevant if no comets at all arrive AFTER THE CRUST HAS FORMED AND COOLED, since all those comets (and smaller icy bodies, and even larger moonlets maybe with ice), and their water, have already arrived. When the planet is still forming and not yet full grown, when the crust has not even been formed yet since the entire planet (such as it is) is red hot and mallable, it does not matter of a comet arrives and makes a big hole, the next rock that comes along will remake it, and the magma will flow into it, and so, no hole. This also simply ignored the evidence I did provide that icy bodies can and sometimes do arrive here and make no hole, since they melt long before they arrive at the surface, or sometimes explode in the upper atmosphere, also leaving no hole. Note that it is irelevant if they do or not anyway, since most such ice would have arrived at the early earth, when making or not making a hole then will leave us no evidence of it now anyway.

The whole water from free oxygen from plants thing.- Where do the plants get their oxygen to convert to free oxygen? From water, thus using that oxygen to then make water results in no net gain of water. It does not matter what mathematics you use, to get free oxygen, you must first have unfree oxygen, and if you do not get it from water, exactly where do you get it from? I know of no evidence that plants can suck oxygen out of rocks and spew it into the air, they get their oxygen from water and thus cannot increase the store of new water. And it assumes that the whole of the oxygen is converted to water, which the banded iron oxide ore formations show is not the case, result, a net decrease in water. 1 (oxygen molyceul in water) -1 (remove oxygen molyceul from water, make it free oxygen) +1 (turn it back into water) = 1 (still just 1, no net gain). Even if you assume that fully half of the oxygen came from some other source (say carbon dioxide, which was not actually present too much in the early earth many beleive, being only created when plants released oxygen from water, it combine with CH4 methane, and created corbon doixide and some water, a net loss of water), then you still must have a LOT of water to start with since you must use at least 50% water (some plants, such as cynobacteria, can use 100% water) to make that free oxygen and still also be able to lose free oxygen to make all that iron oxide.

You also simply ignored the whole zircon crystals show evidence of large amounts of water thing (and the isotopes thing). Thus when I see this whole argument, I must assume that you must want the bible to not have science in it a lot, since you are ignoring the huge scieentific, chemical, mathamatical, and evidential holes in your argument. It is, of course, possible that you are simply unaware of the science, in that case, I suggest you look up photosynthesis and see where the plants get their oxygen. The key point to look up, WHERE DO THE PLANTS GET THEIR OXYGEN TO MAKE FREE OXYGEN, plus, what happens to that free oxygen in the early earth, and how do you explain the great oxydization event if that oxygen was not formerly being used up in oxidizing iron and thus not being available to make water out of?

Conclusion:
1) It is possible for the rocks and dust and gasses that gethered to form the early earth to have large amounts of water on them (probaly as ice).
2) The evidence of zircon crystals and of isotopes shows that the early earth did indeed have large amounts of water. This agrees with Job 38:8 Job 38:9 (unless you can point to evidence of another time with a complete cloud cover so thick it made thick darkness and was associated with the sea which burst forth as if from a womb, as if it was steam).
3) Photosythensis cannot produce enough free oxygen to account for the ocean sized water on this planet, since it gets most of it's oxygen from water iself, and thus must start with water.
4) The amount of oxygen that was used up making things like iron oxide means that an awfull lot of the oxygen for up to 2 billion or so years ended up making non water, which leaves too little oxygen left over to make all this water, since it came from plants freeing oxygen from water anyway. That iron oxide oxygen must have come from somehwere, and one has to ask where the plants got their oxygen from to free up to create it.

see let me show you some problems, some evcen occur in the questions,

About interperatation of Gen 1, is it literal or metaphorical, if the later parts are literal, such as the whole Abraham and Moses etc, is it reasonable to assume that the whole of it is literal, or are we to decide without evidence which parts are literal and which metaphorical?

If you believe that Gen 1 is literal than there is no reason you should not accept that the days mentioned are 24 hours day, since that is what the literal translation would hold you to, evening and morning. Unless you go metaphorical you cant say they are millions of years and in that sense, contrary to you, the YEC would go right.. all by your own admission of this.

4) The basis of why I beleive you do not beleive the bible does not contain scientific facts (besides the fact that you said so in no uncertain terms) is your interpreatation of Rom 1:20. Please whow your interpratation of Rom 1:20, and how it does not mean that. Please cover the actual words in the verse (you can of course cover verses before that, context and all that). So far, you have said you beleive my interpratation wong, but have provided no alternative interpratation along with reasons why it may be more correct.

The bible contains scientific facts, no denying it. the interpretation however of the scriptures "to validate them" to scientific findings is not a very nice way to interpret it even if we are given the choice of extracting the meaning regardless of the context. This poses some huge problems, for example, by your own previous posts where you and I had some discussion on language, you said, that some scientist think that language existed way back even as far as 100000 B.C and Adam existed at that time, in light of this, how do you explain gen 11. It produces some problems, of course we can always say that God did it regardless, just out of the blue he changed everyone's language, but wouldn't that be going against some scientific evidence. My point is you can not rely totally on science to validate scriptures, to accept the supernatural one must be able to accept it on a logic that then does not necessarily demands logic or reason, even if the reason exists, it becomes trivial since we are not putting our faith in knowledge alone.

How does the same science you are saying is pretty clear in the scriptures and we can see the underlying order of them, can you please tell me, how does then water turns to wine scientifically. How does a man who is dead touches the bones of of dead Elisha and rise again. How does that happen? did you find any scientific order or meaning in the scripture to verify it. You are taking science to prove gen1 is factual, i agree. only I say that the evidence is not conclusive. you make a very good case of it, no doubt. I even admitted that a couple of years back I was using the same route you are going on. YOu bring in the reference of romans, but that reference is not a scientific certification, it just tells you that we can see what God did, we can't refute it, you do not need to even ever read a word and yet again this verse would hold true, creation itself speaks for it self - of a creator. Rom 1:20 validates the claim only to prove that the sinner is without an excuse not that this verse is scientific verification standard. Because then if all the Bible is true then all of it is factual if all of it is factual then it can be understood from science clearly, but right here is the glitch, you can't apply science to the whole Bible only the parts you can, you can produce a good theory to explain to Gen 1 but a lot of other things would be far from scientific verification and then we end up in a problem, either we explain everything scientifically but that would make us go far fetching the original context, the other is we do not try to fit the scriptures in a scientific model as a whole.

I simply see no other way to interpret this verse, in it's context, but from the words it uses. This is why I included that little Jack and Jill thing, I simply see no other way IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL WORDS USED, to interprate Rom 1:20, unless you use "deconstruction" to give you an excuse to basically assume, without evidence, the "intent of the author", and then put your own interpratation over it which basically simply ignores the actual words, their actual definitions, and gives them new definitions which are not in the language as written. Deconstruction is basically destroying the actual known definitions of the word and overlaying it with a new defination you make up from your assumed "intent of the author", which you cannot know except by the very words you just destroyed and ignored, that is why it is called de construct, to tear down and rebuild in your new image. Yet without a working time machine and the power of mind reading, your "intent of the author" is simply replacing the original meanings of the words with ones you make up from your own prejudices and modern ideas and biases. If you do not "deconstruct" the words of Rom 1:20 (and the verses before and after it), you are left with what you see above.

The intent is clear in the context.

I see that you are prosing a Cool Early Earth theory with a Late Heavy Bombardment model to follow it. I have nothing against your own personal belief, I was only against this idea that it was the only way possible, even if you read Wikipedia the origin of water is listed in five different ways, you picked one and said it is this way. Now you are showing Zircon crystals, as a matter of fact they do point more in favor of gap theory than anything else, because that means that the earth's temperature was hospitable. A cool earth rather than a hot one which most theories propose as a background. But to put it simply, there are too many, ifs and buts everywhere. when I said

WRONG...I only said I didn't agree with your interpretation and I'm not absolute sure how it happened. I never said it is unscientific.

you replied

Does this mean that you are uncertain if the bible does or does not contain science that we might now, with our greater scientific knowledge, be able to see (when in the past they could not), or are you saying that you are absolutly sure that the bible does not contain science, specifically in Gen 1? This is just a question for clarification of your position, so that I do not argue against a position you do not hold

When I said I am not sure, I meant I am not sure about which theory is absolutely complete, every theory poses problems, not just scientific but theological as well. Nevertheless Gen 1 did happen, exactly how is the question. that was the only thing I contradicted to you on. But in large part it was because you claimed that this was the only way possible.

Plus if you claim that my understanding is faulty because I do not know much about science, "well I admit I am no scientists", I only know what I read. but for the argument sake even if I agree with you, that early earth had large amounts of water by default, wouldn't that pose a problem to your earlier claims. for example, if gen1:2 means the earth was with large bodies of water present, wouldn't that make the vapor cloud concept of yours a problem, since that is based on how earth was clicking hot, if Gen 1:2 means earth was filled with oceans, then there is no reason for a mist to rise up in the later days, it should just rain. But that doesn't happen.

This is your post

The reason this atmosphere did not condense during this fairly breif time shortly after the formation of this planet is because, if it rained, the planet was still so hot that the rain immediatly evaporated. Result "Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,
Job 38:10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, Job 38:11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'?" This is clearly talking about a time just before there were any seas, " when it burst forth from the womb" states that therefore it must have just before that been unborn, ie no seas, they were all up in the air as those clouds, stated as a garment which wrapped around like one. Then the planet cooled, the rain could then fall and not evaporate, and so it did, result, seas. later, the planet cooled more and the crust buckled some, result, wrinkles, ie continents, dry land. It's all in genesis.

Doesn't zircon findings go against this, water was present in oceanic proportions, but I guess you realized it and so you brought in the comet water theory, but believe me that has been refuted so many times now that I just don't buy it. But again if the zircon claim is absolutly undeniable and Gen 1:2 shows it then your statements below seems to pose problems

That is the bible, science says that when this planet first formed from a bunch of space rocks and dust and gas, all that colliding together made for a planet that was very hot (as in red hot). This would mean that all water would vaporize to steam if it touched the surface, so it would indeed be all up in the air, resulting in "thick darkness" exactly as described in Job. This makes Rom 1:20 true, since we see that the bible describes exactly in Job and Genesis what we now know actually happened, "being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse". If Job and Genesis do not agree with what we now know happened, and from the natural laws MUST have happened, then Romans is false, and Job is false, and Genesis is false, and the bible is false. Is the bible false?

Zircon findings indicate that the temperatures had cooled to the 100-degree Centigrade range, the earth was hospitable, with liquid water on the surface, not in the air. There are only two things here, either the time scale of zircons is not perfect or we can not point zircon time scale to Gen1:2, it must be later than that, which makes the whole point mute.

) Do you know the basic structure of the bible? The basic structure is that of a 4000 year old covenant beween a king and the people. This requires it to contain certain things, history, law, and other things. genesis includes the history and law parts. There is nothing in these old covenant forms about metaphorical history, only actual history of the king, the people, the laws, and how those laws were carried out, changed, or broken (the prophets covered the broken part).

was this rhetoric?

Even if you dump my idea, and say that early earth had huge huge amounts of water to begin with,( that water didn't form eventually because of more cooling and condensation at the poles, uv rays producing more water out of the already separated co2 and h20, forming a water cycle, with photosynthesis and Photodissociation. ) wouldn't that require a cool earth to condense such H and O to form water, a hot earth certainly wont. The problem is even if I agree with you this poses problems in your earlier explained day cycles. because they agree based on the premise of a hot earth.

As I said before I am not sure of any one theory yet, I haven't decided as an absolute that "I know this is correct." I am happy to be proven false but despite all your good intentions, there are something which will always remain a hunch, for example do we literally take the 24 hour day or not, see we are starting on an assumption, the probability lies 50/50 % you can be right or wrong, because of your starting positions, I am not saying that i support Yec, but just saying that on principle it poses a problem inherent in the interpretations of the scriptures. you can never be sure about the things the Bible is mute upon. You can form theories all you want. You said the water was up in the air all and all of it, on the day the waters separated. I gave you a calculation how so much water can not stay in the atmosphere, yet you didn't address it.

Anyways, God bless you. hope something are cleared up.

ps. If there are type errors please ignore, I am writing in a rush and didn't have time to edit the post.

If you believe that Gen 1 is literal than there is no reason you should not accept that the days mentioned are 24 hours day, since that is what the literal translation would hold you to, evening and morning. Unless you go metaphorical you can’t say they are millions of years and in that sense, contrary to you, the YEC would go right.. all by your own admission of this.

Uhm...no. In the original language, the word, YOM, simply means a unit of time, length unspecified. The arguments that the YEC have used to try and force it to only mean 24-hour day have been shown to be false (in some cases flat out lies). There is a LOT of this on the parent God and Science site, it goes into exhaustive detail so I won't go into it here. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html (look for the word ordinal for the YEC lies )

When I say that Genesis 1 is literal, I mean literal in the original language, with the definitions that the original Hebrew words had. These were often several for one word, since they had less than 9000 words and had to use one word to stand for several related meanings. YOM is such a word, it can mean anywhere from 12 hours to infinity. Also by literal I mean what it does not say as well as what it does not, if for instance the method used to create life is not specified (which it isn't, although it is implied it is a natural process in the phrase "let the earth") then I also do not specify, where it is stated, such as in the creations of Adam and Eve (even to using a different word "fashioned" there) then I do. The reason I do not accept it as metaphorical is because the later portion if it is not, it looks like history and has been shown to be such by archeology (as much as can be to date). If the later portion is history, if it is nowhere stated or implied it is metaphorical, and if Gen 1 matches the best current science, I see no reason to label it metaphor. I also see that the anti god crowd likes to label any part of the bible they do not want to be factual and "metaphor", thus hiding from the population at large any evidence that could validate the bible. In archeology, they have done this many times and then been shown dead wrong. Thus, when I see any part of the bible not expressly stated or at least strongly implied (such as parables) as being metaphor, I look on that idea with extreme suspicion. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on ME.

BTW, that 4000-year-old covenant between a king and the people that the bible is written as is something that is usually only known by advanced seminary students in the better seminaries. I know a doctorate from Westminster Theological Seminary where I picked that up. It isn't as if knowledge of ancient kingly covenants is generally known. You can take it or leave it, since I haven't found anything yet online to show you. It's not the sort of thing that is popular, 4000 year old knowledge is...considered somewhat dated. Last minute addition, found something here http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/charts/C ... ipture.htm .

I do NOT propose a cool early earth and a late heavy bombardment. I am proposing that the coming together of the rocks and gas and dust and ICE that formed the very early earth in the first place had all this water. This coming together of rocks and dusts and gasses is described here Gen 1:2, it describes the pre earth to earth phase, when the planet as such would have been unrecognizable, first just rocks in space, then a chaotic jumble of infalling rocks and such. Since an ice containing body could arrive early in this process, a lot of this ice would end up buried. As more arrived and the earth grew big enough to actually have signifigant gravity, rocks and icy bodies to arrive later in this process would land with considerable force, generating heat from friction. Then this hot early earth would start to settle out the heavy stuff (mostly iron and nickel) to the bottom and the light stuff, like silicone higher up, and the very light stuff, like that ice which is now steam, will outgas from the surface up into the newly forming atmosphere. This is described in the bible here Job 38:8. This is also now the major scientific belief. This idea also makes more sense than the others, if there are icy bodies out there at the time of the early earth, many will actually become the earth, falling into it early on and thus not being available later to hit the later cooler earth, which would make craters we might still be able to see.

Also, if there is ice out there, and there is, I don't see how you can help but have most of that ice arrive during the initial formation of the earth. Even if there is a "late heavy bombardment", how would you assure that the only ice arrives in that later bombardment of space rocks and is NOT present in the earlier space rocks that came together to form the bulk of the earth that is to be bombarded later? When the rocks come together to form the earth (and other solar system stuff) that also means a lot less rocks for any later bombardment.

Basically, I am not talking about comets coming in to hit the earth as we know it, I am talking about comets and other icy bodies and gasses and ice clouds forming the actual building blocks that came together to form the earth in the first place. When I say "earth", you are probably think of the form of the earth as you know it, with a cool formed solid crust which would have a big crater if something solid hit it. I am NOT talking about that earth, I am talking about the very early earth that was first just rocks in space, then a hot early earth, both not recognizable to us today in the form we know it, thus the description "formless and void".

It is during this time of the very very young hot earth that the steam escaping through the crust (if something that hot can be called a crust yet) will form a cloud around the earth since it cannot stay on the surface without vaporizing, making thick darkness and a completely earth covering cloud layer, as see here Job 38:9, such thick darkness also seen here Gen 1:2. You just need to understand it is talking about the very very very early earth, when it went from "formless and empty" (literally "empty and in emptiness", an apt description of rocks in space) to semi formed, to mostly formed but still very hot. During, and only during, the time of this very early hot earth, the vents in Job and Genesis can be seen to be literal, there would be thick darkness and a complete cloud cover made up of the whole of the water we now know (possible more), with more coming out all the time. Joining this water will be volcanic sort of stuff, ash, and gasses, that sort of thing. Look at a picture of a volcano and you will see that if you cover the earth with that plus a thick water cloud, you are talking really dark. When the volcanism and ash die down some, you will still have thick clouds but there will be a little light, as seen in Gen 1:3. This phase is described as being at sea level as we know it, since the bible was written to humans who only know of the earth as it now is. Since the earlier still building rocks in space to infalling rocks to chaotic early earth is NOT in a form recognizable to us today, that is why it was called "formless" in Gen 1:2.

When this crust cools and we have the liquid water on the surface, THAT is the time of those zircon crystals would form. That zircon formed at about 4.2 to 4.35 billion years ago that is well after the age of the initial formation of the earth, 4.5 billion years or a bit before. Those crystals show the earth at the time after Gen 1:6, when the water separated into clouds above and sea below, yet still before when the crust cooled enough to start wrinkling as dry land appears as seen in Gen 1:9, as seen by the fact that 100% of these crystals formed in the presence of water, showing that there was water everywhere (the smooth early earth had not humped up anywhere enough to show enough land through that some of this sample of crystals would be formed in greater heat in the absence of water).

In summery, I am not talking about water bearing bodies, like comets, supplying the earth with he majority of it's water AFTER it formed into the form we know today, but the vast majority arriving during the "formless and void" age when the earth was still in the PROCESS of assuming the form we know today.
BTW, you might want to look at http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html to see that there is actually no possible gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, since the original bible did not divide itself into verses, and these two verses were actually part of one sentence, as well as other original language and context reasons why Gen 1:1 is not just a summery.

Anyway, I hope this explains what I am talking about, so that we at least understand where the other guy is coming from.
And as for that last part of your post, uh, that reminds me, time to use the spell checker (not that I would EVER get it wrong ).

yup, this at least explain somethings

I am specially not a strict gap follower, I mentioned gap theory because it presented an alternative and some questions. I still have not decided upon a single theory. I understand the word "Yom", the only implication I wanted was to say was that when it is followed by evening and morning; it tends to have more meanings than one, as in this case where you (and me) think they are indefinite periods and some one else will take it as a literal evening and morning.

To be in my position I would say that no work of God is metaphor, I do not believe that, the Bible is no myth, nor the stories are fantasies that early Hebrews had. I apologize as I guess this is what you have probably thought of my position which is certainly not the case.

I am planning to do my master degree in Theology soon, anyways thanks for the AGAPE link. It is always good to read something. (I couldn't relate it to our current conversation though, if that is something you wanted me to see)

As I said before I have nothing against what you believe to be right, but I do like some moderation on the fact that creationists, evolutionists, naturalists, Day Age/Progressive, Theistic, OEC, YEC, all have their theories all have examples to show and support their theory and by their own assumption and ideas - they come correct. YEC is the least I tend to lean towards but I wouldn't be too blunt to call them flat out liars and wrong, give them space, what if they contradict our view, they are still brothers in Christ, they believe in the son of God and we do the same, the interpretation of Genesis (while of great important) is trivial when we compare it to this. When we address them we could do it gently rather than pointing them out as fools. The atheist camp is doing it for us, they measure us all the same.

God bless you.

Good to know you at least understand what I was saying (I wasn't always sure I had clearly explained it). I can understand why you would think that when I said "earth", I meant "earth as you know it" and thus could not see comets arriving without leaving a mark . I beleive this is why the bible specifies "void and without form", to specify that what was not being talked about there was anything like what we know today. I think the bible can be so specific and careful because the God who planned out what words to put in it had an almost infinite choice of different languages and cultures and thus words and their definitions to use, and chose each word with equisite care taking into account each individual who would ever read it. The earth I was talking about could be described as 5 minutes after the last rock fell, although actually I think the autgassing of steam would probably start happening even whiile some of the rocks have yet to arrive (say while the earth is 7500 miles in diameter rather than the whole 8000).

I can also understand why you would not go with just one theory of how water happens to be on this planet, scientists also have no one theory, since they know that they do not have a working time machine to check with. HOWEVER, they, if they knew God, COULD just crack open Genesis, which was dictated (to Moses) by an eywitness (God), who did witness it all (Satan also wintesses it, but he aint telling). Genesis points to most of the water arriving while the planet was in the process of forming (contained in the stuff it was made out of), and "outgassing" in Job, where that is specifically describe by God to Job. In this case, God can validate a scientific theory, rather than the other way around.

As for there being so many different ideas out there, that may not be a coincidence. As I said, Satan also witnesses this, and definatly does NOT want us to compare Genesis and cosmology, and see evidence for God in science. Therefore, the common spy tactic when information leaks out you don't want the other side to know about is "disinformation", if you can't amaze them with brillience, baffle them with BS. An example, the KGB operative of the Soviet embassy wants to go meet his operative in Wash DC, but the FBI is watching the place to follow him. He sends out a dozen people who all leave at the same time, and who all drive around the city in evasive and hard to follow ways. Thus the FBI has a hard time following since they simply don't have enough men to follow them all. Satan can use the same tactic, if the truth of Genesis slips out, baffle them with multiple theories to make it hard to see the truth in the haystack of all those lies. Just because the believer of a false theory is a Christian (and some just say they are but are not, as Jesus said Mat 7:21), doesn't mean that the theory (or even most of the theories) did not originate with Satan, or was at least suggested by Satan. The sdame is also true of theology, even theology taught in seminaries (especially "liberal" seminaries), it could easily be BS designed to keep one from the actual truth. The best guard against it is to read the actual words written in the bible, if nessissary in the original language (checkinga word or two is usually sufficient in most cases), and see what it actually says, rather than some "interpratation" that is different than what it actually says. Especially, say away from "higher critisism" and "deconstruction" and J documents" and the like (not a shred of evidence that a J document ever existed), thos elook EXACTLY like disinformation to me (you have to know spy stuff to see it easily).

And the reason I say that the whole Genesis is not science thing is from Satan is not only because I see how Genesis matches the most prevelant and reasonable science, but also because the idea that the bible has no science and is just myth (or fable, or "literature") and thus that science "proves" there is no god and thus one should not even bother with the bible in the first place is taught in every public school now. Who would want people taught in childhood that there is definatly no god and that they should not even consider that there might be one, God or Satan? And who would want Christians to beleive in young earth creationism, an idea which is so very easily disproven by science that it makes Chrisianity look like a foolish fable? Not only that, but it leads to people lying to cover up the weakness of their idea to "defend God", a silly idea since God needs no defense. And the whole young earth "defend God no matter what you have to do" idea leads to problems with people who do not even beleive the young earth idea, it has prevaded the whole of Chrisianity today. Just look up "noble cause corruption" to see what I mean.

I see the whole "the bible has no science, is just a myth, there is no God, science proves it" as perhaps Satans best, most successful secret operation yet, since it is so widespread.