Evidence for God from Science

Anyone else seeing the theme with swordfish's posts?

He just makes up things that he thinks people believe, and he argues against them.

It's called bearing a false witness against a brother. As well as straw man arguments.

I knew there was something fishy going on!

Philip wrote:

Anyone else seeing the theme with swordfish's posts?

He just makes up things that he thinks people believe, and he argues against them.

It's called bearing a false witness against a brother. As well as straw man arguments.

I knew there was something fishy going on!

Something fishy indeed. And it smells like rotten swordfish.

swordfish7 wrote:

RickD wrote: All scientists are not a part of some "anti God" conspiracy. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and also believe the universe is billions of years old. For some reason, you've bought into the Ken Ham school of thought which conflates billions of years, with naturalism.

Do you know the difference between supernatural and natural? What impact would a supernatural creation have on the expansion of the universe? What about the decay constants of the radiometric dating methods? How would a Christian assuming natural causes in creation be misled if the causes were actually supernatural? There IS a conspiracy in science to not even allow the possibility of God creating life and the universe: only natural processes are allowed. When Christian scientists agree to this assumption, then they will end up with a belief that the earth is old, because they don't allow supernatural processes. But one may object to this and say they do believe in supernatural processes. Yes, they are double tongued for when they conduct their science they do so with the assumption that only natural processes explain the creation, yet they believe there were supernatural processes in creation. Specifically, they assume the supernatural processes do not mess up the natural processes and the associated outcomes. So the real question for all creationists is,"Do the supernatural processes God used in creation impact the assumed natural processes and by how much?" So when scientists come up with models of the evolution of the universe, can those models be trusted even with the supernatural creation impacts included?

RickD wrote: There's absolutely no reason one can't believe the evidence of an old universe, and still believe that God created it.

This would be an absolute statement if all the processes God used were natural and the evidence for the old universe were accurate. If God did use supernatural processes, then how much did it cause divergence from the assumed natural processes?

RickD wrote: Here's just a few of the ways scientists, even theistic scientists, know the age of the universe and earth:
http://biologos.org/common-questions/sc ... d-universe

I had lunch with Hugh Ross once and mentioned that all the mountains I had ever hiked on had shells on them. I knew this question would be "in your face" but I asked it to rattle his cage and see his response. He was very condescending and stated the standard evolutionary response. Rather than graciously laughing and saying, "Well I guess one could see this as evidence for a young earth, but I see it as ..." He showed his utter contempt for YECs by his sneer and body language. Again, the logical question to ask is, "If God supernaturally created the universe and all life, can we use naturalistic models that show the age of the universe and rely on them to show an accurate age?" This is the question!

I would like to know how Noah's flood proves the earth is young,because in his discussion with Ross he seems to imply that rocks on the top of mountains proves the earth is young. We know the earth is not 6-10,000 years old,because of the amount of death and extinction in the earth,it cannot fit into a 1500 year period from Adam and Eve to Noah's flood. The earth is at least millions of years old based on how much death and extinction is in the earth. There is more life dead in the earth than all life presently on the earth that cannot fit into a 1500 year period of time.

abelcainsbrother wrote: I would like to know how Noah's flood proves the earth is young,because in his discussion with Ross he seems to imply that rocks on the top of mountains proves the earth is young.

There were a couple points I was making. The first was that the shells on top of the mountains of the world are evidence there was a world wide flood as stated in scripture (Gen. 6:6-8,13,17,19; 7:4,11,12,17-24; 8:1-5,9,21; 9:11,Is. 54:9, Heb. 11:7; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk.17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:5,6). Hugh Ross does not believe in a world wide flood. He has a low view of scripture and places "science" above scripture. The geological evidence which is touted as evidence for an old earth is actually rapidly deposited by the flood and shows the biodiversity prior to the flood where the lifespan of animals and humans was much longer.

abelcainsbrother wrote: We know the earth is not 6-10,000 years old,because of the amount of death and extinction in the earth,it cannot fit into a 1500 year period from Adam and Eve to Noah's flood.

We have the genealogy with the years given (Gen.11:10-32; 5:1-32), which shows the earth is young. There was an abundance of life on the earth prior to the flood. Also, there was no rain where the humidity was much greater and a dew would deposit on the ground and plants (Gen. 2:5,6). It was a tropical environment over the earth, just like the geological evidence shows today. The glaciers developed after the flood - this is one view espoused by creationists. So the ice core evidence used today as evidence of an old earth is actually primarily due to the time after the flood where massive amounts of snow fell as the earth rebalanced after the flood.

abelcainsbrother wrote: The earth is at least millions of years old based on how much death and extinction is in the earth. There is more life dead in the earth than all life presently on the earth that cannot fit into a 1500 year period of time.

This is your belief but the earth was significantly different prior to the flood where it supported a significant amount of life given the fact that the whole world was tropical and much life could be found at the poles. The seas were less deep too so there was a vast amount of underwater life forms. When you look at the YEC model, it is consistent with the evidence we see in geology.

swordfish7 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: I would like to know how Noah's flood proves the earth is young,because in his discussion with Ross he seems to imply that rocks on the top of mountains proves the earth is young.

There were a couple points I was making. The first was that the shells on top of the mountains of the world are evidence there was a world wide flood as stated in scripture (Gen. 6:6-8,13,17,19; 7:4,11,12,17-24; 8:1-5,9,21; 9:11,Is. 54:9, Heb. 11:7; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk.17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:5,6). Hugh Ross does not believe in a world wide flood. He has a low view of scripture and places "science" above scripture. The geological evidence which is touted as evidence for an old earth is actually rapidly deposited by the flood and shows the biodiversity prior to the flood where the lifespan of animals and humans was much longer.

abelcainsbrother wrote: We know the earth is not 6-10,000 years old,because of the amount of death and extinction in the earth,it cannot fit into a 1500 year period from Adam and Eve to Noah's flood.

We have the genealogy with the years given (Gen.11:10-32; 5:1-32), which shows the earth is young. There was an abundance of life on the earth prior to the flood. Also, there was no rain where the humidity was much greater and a dew would deposit on the ground and plants (Gen. 2:5,6). It was a tropical environment over the earth, just like the geological evidence shows today. The glaciers developed after the flood - this is one view espoused by creationists. So the ice core evidence used today as evidence of an old earth is actually primarily due to the time after the flood where massive amounts of snow fell as the earth rebalanced after the flood.

abelcainsbrother wrote: The earth is at least millions of years old based on how much death and extinction is in the earth. There is more life dead in the earth than all life presently on the earth that cannot fit into a 1500 year period of time.

This is your belief but the earth was significantly different prior to the flood where it supported a significant amount of life given the fact that the whole world was tropical and much life could be found at the poles. The seas were less deep too so there was a vast amount of underwater life forms. When you look at the YEC model, it is consistent with the evidence we see in geology.

First off I believe in a global world wide flood as most Gap Creationists do but it does not prove the earth is young. Also Gap Creationists accept Ussher's chronology and believe it was 6-10,000 years ago when God made this world. The difference is there was a former world ruled over by Lucifer until he sinned against God,then that world perished completely and this is why we see the evidence of so much death and extinction in the earth.

We could say in the former world God was testing angels and Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled while in this world God is testing man. This is also why no angels were created on any of the six days in Genesis 1 and why Satan was already in the garden of Eden to tempt Adam and Eve. Angels had been created in the beginning but before the earth was created Job 38:4-7.It also shows totally different life both animal life and plant life. The former world was totally different with totally different kind of life and even plant life. This is why it is different than the life in this world You see Lucifer's flood was much,much worse of a flood than Noah's flood was because both the heavens and earth was flooded. Mars used to have water on it. Where did it go? Genesis 1:6-7. All life died and the reason all life died is because God turned off the sun.

In Noah's flood that you're trying to make all of the fossils and extinct life fit into a 1500 year period ignoring the facts about how much death and exctinction is in the earth would have just decayed away because the sun was shining the whole time. The reason why it did not decay away in Lucifer's flood was because the sun was shut off until the fourth day in Genesis 1 plus it was buried in the layers of strata that protected it from the elements.You see God made the sun,moon and stars,he did not create them.on the fourth day They had already been created in the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1:1 but had been shut off. Genesis 1:2.

It was not the purpose of Noah's flood to destroy the earth but it was to kill off the half breeds of humans and angels Genesis chapter 6. This idea that floods caused the layers of strata is a myth. You have science put together by young earth creationists based on a wrong creation interpretation. The bible does not teach the earth is young and not even Ussher's chronology was about the age of the earth but was about when God created Adam and Eve.

You are having to believe the earth is young by blind faith because you cannot make the amount of death and extinction in the earth fit into a 1500 year period.The amount of fossil fuels that has been used up by man proves it too. You cannot do it,unless you believe it by blind faith. I don't have blind faith though because I know the former world Lucifer ruled over lasted millions of years based on the evidence in the earth,plus Gap Creationists teach Noah's flood happened too,but from a much more true scientific perspective. It is better when secular science who looks at everything from an evolution perspective discovers things that confirm the bible true,instead of biased young earth creationism science that have not taught Noah's flood properly and have made it hard for scientific minded people to accept.

swordfish7 wrote:

There were a couple points I was making. The first was that the shells on top of the mountains of the world are evidence there was a world wide flood as stated in scripture (Gen. 6:6-8,13,17,19; 7:4,11,12,17-24; 8:1-5,9,21; 9:11,Is. 54:9, Heb. 11:7; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk.17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:5,6). Hugh Ross does not believe in a world wide flood. He has a low view of scripture and places "science" above scripture. The geological evidence which is touted as evidence for an old earth is actually rapidly deposited by the flood and shows the biodiversity prior to the flood where the lifespan of animals and humans was much longer.

As for the underlined, another misrepresentation of a Brother in Christ. This is extremely tiring.

Swordfish,

Since you can't stop acting like a child, you're going in a week long timeout. If you decide to stop misrepresenting people, you can continue posting. If not then you will have another time out.

First thing, one must be very careful with the genealogies in Scripture. What is their purpose? All are not meant to function as per a modern sense of such a listing (see here: http://godandscience.org/youngearth/gen ... ogies.html).

The other issue is, there are two creation accounts. The first (in Genesis 1) reveals that after all of the animals were created, then God created man. The scene of Genesis 2 switches to Eden and the creation of Adam and Eve. Eden is not the world. And the Garden isn't Eden, but it is IN Eden. It is entirely possible that God previously created mankind FAR earlier than He created Adam and Eve (the Christ line of Gods' chosen ones throughout history). While the church has long assumed that the Genesis 2 Creation account of Adam and Eve is merely picking up where Genesis 1 left off, there is a very good possibility that this is not the case - meaning that that would totally skew using Genesis genealogies as an accurate measure of the age of the earth. Of course, the very idea that one takes a literal understanding of the pertinent texts discussing the "days" of Creation,- to assume it is talking about the TIME issue, in a scientific sense, is possibly very problematic.

Lastly, many believe that 1) Scripture is inerrant, in its original texts, 2) that macroevolution (simple cells to man) is false, and 3) that the earth and universe are very ancient. If you are not informed about progressive creation views, then you need to be!

It's far too easy to shoot a strawman - DON'T DO IT!!!

RickD wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:

There were a couple points I was making. The first was that the shells on top of the mountains of the world are evidence there was a world wide flood as stated in scripture (Gen. 6:6-8,13,17,19; 7:4,11,12,17-24; 8:1-5,9,21; 9:11,Is. 54:9, Heb. 11:7; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk.17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:5,6). Hugh Ross does not believe in a world wide flood. He has a low view of scripture and places "science" above scripture. The geological evidence which is touted as evidence for an old earth is actually rapidly deposited by the flood and shows the biodiversity prior to the flood where the lifespan of animals and humans was much longer.

As for the underlined, another misrepresentation of a Brother in Christ. This is extremely tiring.

Swordfish,

Since you can't stop acting like a child, you're going in a week long timeout. If you decide to stop misrepresenting people, you can continue posting. If not then you will have another time out.

It's true that Ross doesn't believe in a world-wide flood (and I've just read some good points on his site about why a local flood would have been hard for people to escape - something I was wondering about). You think the rest of the underlined is slander rather than just an opinion?

RickD wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:

There were a couple points I was making. The first was that the shells on top of the mountains of the world are evidence there was a world wide flood as stated in scripture (Gen. 6:6-8,13,17,19; 7:4,11,12,17-24; 8:1-5,9,21; 9:11,Is. 54:9, Heb. 11:7; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk.17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:5,6). Hugh Ross does not believe in a world wide flood. He has a low view of scripture and places "science" above scripture. The geological evidence which is touted as evidence for an old earth is actually rapidly deposited by the flood and shows the biodiversity prior to the flood where the lifespan of animals and humans was much longer.

As for the underlined, another misrepresentation of a Brother in Christ. This is extremely tiring.

Swordfish,

Since you can't stop acting like a child, you're going in a week long timeout. If you decide to stop misrepresenting people, you can continue posting. If not then you will have another time out.

Really?! RickD I find your charge unfounded towards Swordfish. From my fast google searches I only found Hugh supporting the idea of a local flood, and not global. And Swords following sentence is an opinion. I haven't seen Sword attack anyone or purposely misrepresent anyone. You acted completely unreasonably, here.

Nicki wrote:

RickD wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:

There were a couple points I was making. The first was that the shells on top of the mountains of the world are evidence there was a world wide flood as stated in scripture (Gen. 6:6-8,13,17,19; 7:4,11,12,17-24; 8:1-5,9,21; 9:11,Is. 54:9, Heb. 11:7; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk.17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:5,6). Hugh Ross does not believe in a world wide flood. He has a low view of scripture and places "science" above scripture. The geological evidence which is touted as evidence for an old earth is actually rapidly deposited by the flood and shows the biodiversity prior to the flood where the lifespan of animals and humans was much longer.

As for the underlined, another misrepresentation of a Brother in Christ. This is extremely tiring.

Swordfish,

Since you can't stop acting like a child, you're going in a week long timeout. If you decide to stop misrepresenting people, you can continue posting. If not then you will have another time out.

It's true that Ross doesn't believe in a world-wide flood (and I've just read some good points on his site about why a local flood would have been hard for people to escape - something I was wondering about). You think the rest of the underlined is slander rather than just an opinion?

It's a personal attack on someone, used in an argument against a position that swordfish disagrees with. In other words, because Hugh Ross doesn't believe in a global flood, that means Ross has a low view of scripture(which is false), and he holds science above scripture(which is also false).

Please read the rest of swordfish7's posts, not just this thread, and you'll see his theme. Misrepresentation of those who don't believe as he does.

Mallz wrote:

RickD wrote:

swordfish7 wrote:

There were a couple points I was making. The first was that the shells on top of the mountains of the world are evidence there was a world wide flood as stated in scripture (Gen. 6:6-8,13,17,19; 7:4,11,12,17-24; 8:1-5,9,21; 9:11,Is. 54:9, Heb. 11:7; Matt. 24:37-39; Lk.17:27; 2 Pet. 2:5, 3:5,6). Hugh Ross does not believe in a world wide flood. He has a low view of scripture and places "science" above scripture. The geological evidence which is touted as evidence for an old earth is actually rapidly deposited by the flood and shows the biodiversity prior to the flood where the lifespan of animals and humans was much longer.

As for the underlined, another misrepresentation of a Brother in Christ. This is extremely tiring.

Swordfish,

Since you can't stop acting like a child, you're going in a week long timeout. If you decide to stop misrepresenting people, you can continue posting. If not then you will have another time out.

Really?! RickD I find your charge unfounded towards Swordfish. From my fast google searches I only found Hugh supporting the idea of a local flood, and not global. And Swords following sentence is an opinion. I haven't seen Sword attack anyone or purposely misrepresent anyone. You acted completely unreasonably, here.

Mallz,

Per board guidelines, please take this matter up personally with me. The thread is not an appropriate place to question a moderator's decision.

If anyone has an issue with a moderator's decision, please contact the moderator via pm.

My public apologies, even if I disagree with the board guidelines