Evidence for God from Science

Since Yom is the word translated "day" in Genesis and Yom is defined in Hebrew as either the daylight portion of a day, a 24 hour day or a period of time, if you're going to claim a literal understanding of Genesis, which both YEC and OEC does by the way, then introducing the idea of the earth's rotation being the depending factor you create more problems then you solve. To begin with, you need to explain the presence of 24 hour days in the days before the creation of the sun, moon and stars on day 4.

Correction… there “was” light on the 1st day.

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.

Light was already established on the first 24 hour day.

Secondly, I am familiar with Hebrew. And aside from the word yom (one day) there is also the literal word for "week" (a period of seven days) which is the word “shabuwa” or pronounced “shabuway”.

Here is the literal Hebrew:



This very word is found in Genesis 2 as well as Levititus 12:5, and virtually the whole Old Testament which refers to the word “week“.

So not only does G-d tell us that one day is equal to 24 hours, He also reaffirms this for us when He referes to one full week as a period of seven days.

xoxo

Is it not highly probable that the rate of the moons divergence is increasing because it would be less affected by Earth's gravity the further it moves away from it. I don't really know because I'm not an astronomer and that's just a conclusion I drew.

Regarding the origin of the moon and its drifting away from the earth, Anita, you may be interested in knowing what the current theory on the matter is:

The Giant Collision Theory

That's part 5 of The Universe's episode on the moon.

Enjoy

xoxo

Whether or not the theory is true, Anita, your criticisms don't really hold.

For one thing the earth does not reveal a huge impact such as that on any of its land or ocean masses.

Of course not. After the collision, the earth's surface would have been totally molten. It would be like throwing a rock into a pool and that night, when the temperature drops below freezing, to use the frozen ice (with no "craters") to prove no rock had been thrown in. If you watch the video, you'll see they explained that issue.

Secondly, out of all the moon rocks that were brought back from the moon, not one showed signs of originating from earth as moon rocks are different.

Yes, the composition are different, but, again, as expected in the model. The iron core of the colliding body would have merged with the earth's core. All that would have remained would have been rocks like those on the surface of our earth (because that is basically what they would have been made of). That, of course, is exactly what we find. Any further discrepancies can be explained by the fact that the colliding planet itself originated elsewhere, so you wouldn't expect the composition to be 100% the same. Just similar. Again, that is what we see.

Strangely they seem to say that moon rocks are older than earth rocks.

Not strange. Expected. The moon has no tectonic activity. The earth does. Therefore, the moon rocks would be the same as those that were formed from the impact, whereas earth rocks would have been more recently formed via processes that are going on even to this day.

Additionally they say that nearly all lunar rocks are depleted in volatiles (such as potassium or sodium) and are completely lacking in the minerals found in Earth's water. In some regards, lunar rocks are closely related to earth's rocks in their composition of the element oxygen.

All observations that fit nicely with the above theory.

Now this becomes a bit of a problem because the evolutionist claim that the beginning stages of earths atmosphere did not contain oxygen because we know from observable repeatable experiments that in the presents of oxygen amino acids (which I talked about earlier) necessary for life will NOT bond together - oxygen is like a corrosive and pulls these bonds apart. But the geologists know that there WAS oxygen in the early atmosphere (much higher levels) because they find this evidence in rocks. So this bring us to a very unsettling predicament that life cannot start “with or without” oxygen in the atmosphere. So how did it start than? The only logical answer would be “instantaneous” creation.

I think most of the OECers here would agree with this, as most believe in special creation. They just believe it happened (b)millions of years ago.

Additionally, chemistry teaches us about something called HYDROLYSIS, (this is the action of water DECOMPOSING molecules) specifically amino acids. We all know that water is necessary for life, but it is also DETRIMENTAL to the ORIGINS of life. This information can be found in a basic chemistry book.

So according to the evolutionists life on the early earth did not have oxygen and at the same time it could not have had water either because hydrolysis pulls appart amino acids nessesary for life. So somehow life got started without these elements.

All fine and good, but this has nothing to do with the moon. OF course, I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe you are just going back to an earlier point.

The next question that arises is that is how the moon could be part of the earth? It neither has water elements, but miraculously it has elements of oxygen?

It could have been another planet, formed elsewhere in the solar system, much like ours, complete with oxygen, that collided with the earth, left its iron core in the now molten earth, and reformed from the dust cloud left by the impact.

Or, God could have just made it all at once.

However it happened, I'm just interested in intellectual honesty. I have no problem challenging the prevailing view of things, but I just don't see that the objections you are offering are valid. They've already been accounted for by the theory (perhaps by design). Does that make the theory right? Of course not. Nor does it mean that you, or I, have to accept it. But it does mean that you have to find another set of arguments if you wish to reject it on any sort of a scientific basis.

In my opinion, anyway . . .

Thanks Jac, that was a fair assessment, and thank you for your opinion.

However you say:

Whether or not the theory is true, Anita, your criticisms don't really hold.

However, what holds true is the basic mathematics that strongly indicate that if the earth was billions of years old the moon would have at one time been touching the earth. The moons current spot where it is right now at this point in time indicates a young earth.

The moon colliding into the earth is only a THEORY to account for this. Though it sounds logical does not in any way make it true. Many theories in the past were just the common thought of the day and have often shown not to be true. There are still too many unanswered questions. But as of now I think its safe to say that the math and possition of where the moon is still strongly rules in favor of a young earth.

I see what you are saying, but let me offer you a tool that may help you a bit in the future. There is a difference in a valid and a sound argument. A valid argument is one that makes sense logically, that is, the conclusions logically and necessarily follows the premises. Whether or not an argument is true or false, it must be valid to make any sense. On the other hand, sound arguments are those that are both valid and based on true premises, and thus, can be considered true. This is important, because there are some arguments that can have true conclusions but that are not valid or sound! For example:

1. The Bible is God's Word
2. The Bible says God exists
3. Therefore, God exists.

Well, (1) and (2) are certainly TRUE. And we agree with the conclusion. However, the argument is invalid because it committs the fallacy of begging the question (it is circular reasoning). That is, strictly speaking, it is not a logical argument.

On the other hand:

1. I have met all beings,
2. I have never met God,
3. Therefore, God does not exist

Is valid but it is unsound. It is unsound because (1) is FALSE.

OK, so applying this to our discussion. The Grand Collision Theory is certainly VALID. That is, after all, what makes it a theory. It can explain all the observations and math and everything else. So you can't say it isn't valid. What you are saying is that it isn't sound, because you disagree with the truthfulness of one or more of its premises. And that's totally fair.

Just a distinction for you.

Anita wrote: 1):Secondly, out of all the moon rocks that were brought back from the moon, not one showed signs of originating from earth as moon rocks are different.

2):The next question that arises is that is how the moon could be part of the earth? It neither has water elements, but miraculously it has elements of oxygen?

For the first one:
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Lookin ... n_999.html
For the second:
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Brown- ... r_999.html

Ahhh words words words and technicalities… THEY LITERALLY DRIVE ME CRAZY!

What you say makes sense jac, but how about this one: G-d can do anything, He could even fit an Camel through the eye of a needle. Mark 10:25 - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of G-d.

Illogical? True, But logic is just another of His creations. He who created logic is permitted to disregard it.

And it only gets better.

xoxo

Anita wrote:Ahhh words words words and technicalities… THEY LITERALLY DRIVE ME CRAZY!

What you say makes sense jac, but how about this one: G-d can do anything, He could even fit an Camel through the eye of a needle. Mark 10:25 - It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of G-d.

Illogical? True, But logic is just another of His creations. He who created logic is permitted to disregard it.

And it only gets better.

Anita, this isn't about whether God COULD do something.....all here agree on God's omnipotence. (His word is indeed powerful, He could have proverbially snapped HIs fingers and the universe was here. ) It is about looking at what He DID. And this does, yes, presume taht His creation is orderly and rational and reliable. His creation is a reliable testamony. If we do not want to presume this, then we should just about scrap understanding His creation, past or present. And you can debate this presumption if you want, but really, if God did not use orderly reliable means for His creation, if you reject this presumption, you CANNOT make any conclusion. FOrget about using ANYTHING other than His word.

YOu complain about words and technicalities. This is like some engineer looking at the schematics saying "ah, let's not concern ourselves with the little details....this bridge is ok" Or the lawyer saying "oh, forget about that closing argument, those are just words" But these ARE IMPORTANT!! IT is the technicalities and the care about them that allows us to "always be ready to give the reason for the hope that is in us". Otherwise, we are just sloppy.

Can you imagine PAul's defense of the Gospel if he didn't care about the words? or the developing church not caring about the technicalities? And yes, I understand that Paul was inpired, but Paul's own style was very much like a lawyer presenting a case, caring about words and arguments.

Zoe,

Yes I agree that words are important. Off hand did you know that the Hebrew language is a "conceptual" language? Meaning that there can be many meanings pertaining to one word.

And it is also of my oppinion (on its way to being proven) that all languages of the world stemmed off of Hebrew. Which again is "conceptual".

anita wrote:Yes I agree that words are important.

yeah! So may we dispense with all future exasperated comments about "words words words and technicalities!?!?

But what I'm merely trying to say here is that its only natural that we of course are even more curious about what lies beyond.

YOu must elaborate here....are you referring to the supernatural when you say worlds beyond?
No one here is trying to to examine the "world beyond" insofar as the supernatural.

If by world beyond you mean the universe or space, then in my other post you must show why these are beyond our reach. Saying some vague "we're not there" is not sufficient.

There is no physical life on these bodies as they've proven themselves to be uninhabitable.But we didn't have to go to the moon to find this information out because the Bible has already told us that the lunar origin of the moon was created by G-d in Genesis 1:16

Ok, you went from one premise to another. SCripture tells us that the moon was created by God. Where does it say that it is uninhabited?!?!? This verse tells us nothing with regard to the presence of life on the moon.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind - Albert Einstein

Of course I don't disagree with this

His eternal purpose is accomplished in us only to the degree that we recognize the complete composition He has programmed for us accordingly through his revealed word. If we don't read His word and come to know the truth as to our special purpose, and why we're here, we'll continue to decrease down the path of the scientist and the evolutionist.

I agree with this but the question is can you reject what these professionals find purely on this principle. In other words, is it not true that "all truth is God's truth". If we have 20, 30, or jsut 5 observations that say the universe is old, why should we reject it out of hand.

Essentially, I see that you take any evidence that you think contradicts scripture and reject it and then see that as noble because you think you are upholding scripture. But there are valid readings of scripture that uphold its innerrancy. God's creation is trustowrthy and so is HIs word. If there is an apparen conflict with the two, then it is our interpretation of one of them that is at fault.

Zoe wrote:And this does, yes, presume taht His creation is orderly and rational and reliable. His creation is a reliable testamony. If we do not want to presume this, then we should just about scrap understanding His creation, past or present. And you can debate this presumption if you want, but really, if God did not use orderly reliable means for His creation, if you reject this presumption, you CANNOT make any conclusion. FOrget about using ANYTHING other than His word.

Now let's not overstate the case, Zoe. I am one who has pretty much rejected the "General Revelation is the 67th book of the Bible" bit. We don't have to accept the infallibility of GR's message in order to accept that any truth at all can be found in it. Or, put differently, we don't have to say that, just because science, even properly done, may give us false conclusions, that we can't know ANYTHING from science. That's a slippery slope that just doesn't slide.

Let me use a rather silly illustration to prove the point.

Suppose you developed genuine AI on a computer (or something close enough to scare it to death), and you created an entire little computer world for your computer beings to inhabit. You set up the way that world runs, and off they go. You let them "live" as they see fit. You drop a line to them from time to time, and let them know that you are around, but by and large, you sit back and enjoy the show.

Then, one day, one of them comes along and posits the idea that their world created itself. And let's say, for the sake of argument, that they come up with an ingeninious way that it theoretically could have happened on certain assumptions about the way the computer that they inhabit is constructed. Of course, they can't get outside of the computer to analyze it, but they are just sure that it must be that way, because, after all, that's the only way that it could work and create itself!

Some of them still believe you created it, but they are so impressed with the theory, that they try to blend the two, and they prove that the two ideas are compatible. But then, one of them comes along and says, "Now guys, you know that Zoe created this world for us a certain amount of time ago, and this whole idea is just silly." And then, you have this dreadful response:

• We have to presume that her creation is orderly and rational and reliable. Her creation is a reliable testamony. If we do not want to presume this, then we should just about scrap understanding her creation, past or present. And you can debate this presumption if you want, but really, if Zoe did not use orderly reliable means for her creation, if you reject this presumption, you CANNOT make any conclusion. Forget about using ANYTHING other than her word!

Now, that would just be silly. It's incredibly obvious that just because you made the computer world without reference to the laws that make up that world you don't therefore invalidate those laws.

We, then, can look at the current state of the world and recotgnize a few things:

1. We can know things, because it works according to standard laws unless God intervenes;
2. Those laws may or may not have been the same prior to the Fall (let the theologians decide that one, I'm just talking possibilities);
3. The creation event could well have been miraculous, and miraculous events, by definition, do not submit to the laws of nature;
4. Therefore, we may or may not be able to know anything about the creation event, and we can still know plenty of things about the current state of the world.

The question, then, is whether or not there is any reason to believe that the current state of the world isn't reflective of the past state of the world, say, at its creation or at least before the Fall. And I argue that you CANNOT use the creation itself to answer that question. To answer that, we have to go to God. If He tells us that creation was a miracle, then there is no reason trying to figure out how it happened (that would be a category mistake). If He tells us that the world operated differently before the Fall, then we obviously can't use the present laws to figure out what the past laws looked like. But does that mean that the present laws are not applicable to the present day? Of course not!

The tl;dr to all of this is as follows:

YECers need to properly understand not only scientific theories, but scientific assumptions, and make their case accordingly. OECers need to admit that their view of science is as much philosophical and theological as anything else, and thus, must first be subjected to Scripture and then philosophy before they proclaim their conclusions.

My $.02