Evidence for God from Science

You have missed the point with the comparison of evolution and creation. I was not trying to prove creation I was showing the difference between evolution/modern naturalistic science and what the Bible describes for creation.

I assume you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics(?) At any rate, what do you mean by "Evolution - We are evolving Energy goes from a state of less usable energy to more usable energy (not observable)"?

I forgot commas. It should read We are evolving, Energy...

Man Made Oil, another one

Prove to me the distance of the closest star. Show me the math and what you used for a base line. If you don't know how science assumes the distance then research it. You will be shocked at what you find.

What fossil record? Show me the whole record.

The Bible doesn't say that God had many separate creation events. It doesn't say he started with single cell creatures 4 billion years ago. Prove that with scripture. Science is not scripture, don't take man made theory and make the Bible fit it.

Where did the water go? In the ocean, lakes, etc Psalm 104:3 You are assuming that Mt. Everest was there before the flood and not created because of the flood.

It shows us how trees are buried in different layers of sediment in an upright position. This is how they will fossilize.

This was an exercise in reading the Bible not answering man made "scientific" theory. We have already been through the "scientific" theory and we can see all kinds of holes in it. It is man's attempt to exclude God, therefore, if there is no God then we are not sinners that need to be saved. If we are not sinners but just organisms, then organisms that can't be held responsible for doing wrong. Then there is no judgment at the end of time. Then there is no punishment for sin.

Everybody that involves themselves with this issue always hear the same arguments and are seemingly never convinced one way or the other. I know that I am not following the the chronological order of the previous statements, but I would like to insert my views concerning creation days here. When God created the earth, Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" That statement is followed by the description of the creation as it unfolded. Maybe one could read it this way, "God created it in the beginning and here is a record of it being done". Regardless the full meaning of the first verse, we know it was done at what God (through the Spirit) calls "the beginning". In Matthew 19:4 Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees about marriage, says, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" What beginning is he talking about? The same beginning that was mentioned in Genesis 1:1. That places man in the person of Adam and his wife Eve "at the beginning". Whatever sort of time line one may imagine - drawn to represent the vast ages of time that have supposedly passed in an old earth model - man is always a late comer on the scene. A ten-meter line drawn to represent just a billion years has man placed at the far end of the line in a space covering only 4 one-thousandths of that line - a little under two inches of a thirty-foot long line. Either Jesus didn't know what "at the beginning" meant, or the "beginning" is a whole lot closer than many think it is.
One other point I would like to see answered "scientifically". During the creation days, we see God on day three creating the grass and herbs and trees yielding fruit. According to the Schroeder (spelling?) model, that day covers a couple of billion years, but please note that day four -another billion or so years- the sun is put in the heaven. So the grass and herbs and trees did their thing -photosynthesis and all- without the sun for a couple of billion years. Exodus 20:11 says very plainly, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is... " and he emphasized it again in Exodus 31:17 "...in six days, the Lord made the heaven and the earth".
You believe what you want, God gives you that ability. I choose to believe what he says in the way he says it. He COULD have said, "I created it using many billions of years by evolution and instead of dust, I used genetic mutation to make the male and his female." He didn't say that, though, or anything like it.

moosie7 wrote:I choose to believe what he says in the way he says it. He COULD have said, "I created it using many billions of years by evolution and instead of dust, I used genetic mutation to make the male and his female." He didn't say that, though, or anything like it.

You know what Hebrew word is the best to communicate a period of long series of days, ie billions of years?

Yom
So it can be said that He *did* say that.


and simply because we believe in progressive creationism and therefore an old earth does not mean that we believe in random evolution.

This is a good study on the Hebrew word Yom...

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

I found this book very useful on the question of God's creation days:

'A Matter of Days' by Hugh Ross

http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Days-Resol ... 994&sr=8-1


Another good book he wrote that I found useful was

'The Genesis Question' by Hugh Ross

The Genesis Question: Scientific Advanc ... of Genesis

moosie7 wrote:Everybody that involves themselves with this issue always hear the same arguments and are seemingly never convinced one way or the other. I know that I am not following the the chronological order of the previous statements, but I would like to insert my views concerning creation days here. When God created the earth, Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" That statement is followed by the description of the creation as it unfolded. Maybe one could read it this way, "God created it in the beginning and here is a record of it being done". Regardless the full meaning of the first verse, we know it was done at what God (through the Spirit) calls "the beginning". In Matthew 19:4 Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees about marriage, says, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female?" What beginning is he talking about? The same beginning that was mentioned in Genesis 1:1. That places man in the person of Adam and his wife Eve "at the beginning". Whatever sort of time line one may imagine - drawn to represent the vast ages of time that have supposedly passed in an old earth model - man is always a late comer on the scene. A ten-meter line drawn to represent just a billion years has man placed at the far end of the line in a space covering only 4 one-thousandths of that line - a little under two inches of a thirty-foot long line. Either Jesus didn't know what "at the beginning" meant, or the "beginning" is a whole lot closer than many think it is.
One other point I would like to see answered "scientifically". During the creation days, we see God on day three creating the grass and herbs and trees yielding fruit. According to the Schroeder (spelling?) model, that day covers a couple of billion years, but please note that day four -another billion or so years- the sun is put in the heaven. So the grass and herbs and trees did their thing -photosynthesis and all- without the sun for a couple of billion years. Exodus 20:11 says very plainly, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is... " and he emphasized it again in Exodus 31:17 "...in six days, the Lord made the heaven and the earth".
You believe what you want, God gives you that ability. I choose to believe what he says in the way he says it. He COULD have said, "I created it using many billions of years by evolution and instead of dust, I used genetic mutation to make the male and his female." He didn't say that, though, or anything like it.

Great job in reading the Bible!! Keep up the good work.

Yeah everybody, God created everything in 6 literal days. Let's not try to understand it in the Hebrew, the original language it was written it. Let's forget the fact that God would have created plants and animals on day 5 and 6 on scolding hot lava. Let's also deny the fossil record or any other truths about the earth being old. And the stars ? They are not billions of light years away, in fact, the other day I threw a coke bottle at the star 51 pegasi and could hear it ricochet off it. You see, it's all just a matter of opinion. Anyone who denies the young earth creationists view is of the devil. They are purposely twisting scripture to make it fit into a pseudo science.

Gman wrote:Yeah everybody, God created everything in 6 literal days. Let's not try to understand it in the Hebrew, the original language it was written it. Let's forget the fact that God would have created plants and animals on day 5 and 6 on scolding hot lava. Let's also deny the fossil record or any other truths about the earth being old. And the stars ? They are not billions of light years away, in fact, the other day I threw a coke bottle at the star 51 pegasi and could hear it ricochet off it. You see, it's all just a matter of opinion. Anyone who denies the young earth creationists view is of the devil. They are purposely twisting scripture to make it fit into a pseudo science.

So what you are saying is the Bible is not correct but rather man's science is correct? I'm not the one trying to make the Bible fit science. I will not put my trust in science but rather in the Word of God. Man's science is often incorrect. Now is it good to eat an egg or not? Is global warming real or not? Is radiometric dating correct? Fossils only form when a catastrophe happens. Which would cause the most fossils mud or lava? Prove to me the distance of Pegasus, how do you actually measure the distance from the earth? Everything you use as science is based totally on assumptions. We can't even get global warming correct and yet we are indoctrinating our children with this non sense. When was the last time you read your Bible and not some article or book written by man?

erawdrah wrote: So what you are saying is the Bible is not correct but rather man's science is correct? I'm not the one trying to make the Bible fit science. I will not put my trust in science but rather in the Word of God. Man's science is often incorrect. Now is it good to eat an egg or not? Is global warming real or not? Is radiometric dating correct? Fossils only form when a catastrophe happens. Which would cause the most fossils mud or lava? Prove to me the distance of Pegasus, how do you actually measure the distance from the earth?

Which star in Pegasus would you like to know the distance of?

touchingcloth wrote: Which star in Pegasus would you like to know the distance of?

Your choice and it doesn't matter what star you use, other than the sun. You pick any star you want and show me their baseline and their angles. I want to know what times of the year and what coordinates they were for each measurement. Then publish there baseline in miles and angles in degrees, their guess in miles the distance to that star. That will be a good start and a great learning experience for all who read.

erawdrah wrote:So what you are saying is the Bible is not correct but rather man's science is correct?

What I'm saying here is that your understanding of the Bible is incorrect. So now we have to watch your grandstanding for nothing..

erawdrah wrote:I'm not the one trying to make the Bible fit science. I will not put my trust in science but rather in the Word of God. Man's science is often incorrect.

You mean your understanding of the Word of God.

erawdrah wrote:Now is it good to eat an egg or not? Is global warming real or not?

Check out the research here...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ZZyCgAx3HF

erawdrah wrote:Is radiometric dating correct? Fossils only form when a catastrophe happens.

No one is denying that catastrophes occur. It just so happens that those catastrophies are local..

http://www.answersincreation.org/bookre ... ent/c6.htm

erawdrah wrote:Which would cause the most fossils mud or lava? Prove to me the distance of Pegasus, how do you actually measure the distance from the earth?

51 pegasi is 50.1 light-years from Earth. We can use different methods to find this.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... GQbE6DZato

Star distances beyond 500 million light years we can use this method
http://www.wonderquest.com/star-distances-iii.htm

erawdrah wrote:Everything you use as science is based totally on assumptions.

Totally? wow.. You have all the answers? Prove it..

erawdrah wrote:We can't even get global warming correct and yet we are indoctrinating our children with this non sense. When was the last time you read your Bible and not some article or book written by man?

I have read my Bible and it has told me that you are wrong and that you don't speak for God.. Sorry.

gman wrote: Check out the research here...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ZZyCgAx3HF

Nice please up date your records. Link

erawdrah wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Which star in Pegasus would you like to know the distance of?

Your choice and it doesn't matter what star you use, other than the sun. You pick any star you want and show me their baseline and their angles. I want to know what times of the year and what coordinates they were for each measurement. Then publish there baseline in miles and angles in degrees, their guess in miles the distance to that star. That will be a good start and a great learning experience for all who read.

Take a look at the Hipparcos Catalogue sometime; it has parallax information for not just the stars in Pegasus, but for over 100,000 stars.

touchingcloth wrote:Take a look at the Hipparcos Catalogue sometime; it has parallax information for not just the stars in Pegasus, but for over 100,000 stars.

That's pretty neat.. Thanks for sharing that TC.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Take a look at the Hipparcos Catalogue sometime; it has parallax information for not just the stars in Pegasus, but for over 100,000 stars.

That's pretty neat.. Thanks for sharing that TC.

I'm a sucker for all things astronomical I'm afraid.

You mentioned about measuring distances beyond those that can be measured with parallax - check out the wiki article on the cosmic distance ladder if you're interested in reading more about how various methods are used to infer distances at huge scales. Parallax experiments like Hipparcos are vital as they underpin most of the large-scale measurements.

For an excellent book that details the history and personalities of this area I could highly recommend Simon Sing's Big Bang.