Evidence for God from Science

http://www.chick.com/bc/1999/stalactites.asp

Another good thing to read. thoughts?

If you believe in the Gap theory, the earth could still be millions of years old. But Man would only be about 6000 years old.

Any thoughs on this?

(Gap theory - that the period of time between Gen1:1 and Gen 1:2 cannot be determine and could be millions of years.)

Yeah, its 6000 years since Adam and Eve.. not the beginning, so it could be millions, but that doesnt mean you should believe in evolution, i dont have a certian opinion on the age of the earth. Plus there were 5 days before Adam and Eve, and a day to us is a thousand years too God, so it could be 11000 years old, i really have no idea.

God told us that the earth and all that's in it were created in 6 day's. Don't go telling God it was millions of years because we can't see how it could be any other way.

6000 years sounds about right.

Jay_7 wrote:and a day to us is a thousand years too God, so it could be 11000 years old, i really have no idea.

The context in which this scripture was refering to was in referance to the second comming of Christ. It had nothing to do with creation.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Jay_7 wrote:and a day to us is a thousand years too God, so it could be 11000 years old, i really have no idea.

The context in which this scripture was refering to was in referance to the second comming of Christ. It had nothing to do with creation.

Thanks.

Btw i like your sig

IRQ Conflict wrote:God told us that the earth and all that's in it were created in 6 day's. Don't go telling God it was millions of years because we can't see how it could be any other way.

6000 years sounds about right.

Where did God tell us it was 6 Day's? Do you mean Literal? How about the Day-age Theory? As the Word Yom in Hebrew can mean 3 things. 12 hour, 24 hour, Age...
Might be worth to check it out http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Yes, bizzt. I believe in a literal Bible and a literal 6 day creation. And there was morning and night and it was the first day.

I also believe that if God wanted us to think that the universe was created over eons as the day-age theory suggests, He would have said so. God does not want us to be ignorant of Him.

God bless.

YLTYLT wrote:If you believe in the Gap theory, the earth could still be millions of years old. But Man would only be about 6000 years old.

Any thoughs on this?

(Gap theory - that the period of time between Gen1:1 and Gen 1:2 cannot be determine and could be millions of years.)

I was seriously considering the gap theory about a year go, but I've come to a full rejection of it now. It just doesn't stand up exegetically, and the Satanology that gets tied to it is way, way off base.

On a semirelated note, my theology prof. recently told us something about Jewish thought I had not known before, and it is helping put Gen. 1 in perspective for me. Westerners think in a linear fashion. Our languages are very precise (thank you Latin/Greek) and almost scientific. We say something, and then we continue forward with explanation and description.

Hebrews thought, though, is much more descriptive. They will state something in very general terms, and then go back and restate it in more specific terms, and then go back and restate it again in even more specific terms. You could say their thought process is "top down" whereas ours is "bottom up." When you apply this to Gen. 1., you see just one reason why the gap theory doesn't work. It imposes Western thought on a Near Eastern document. Gen 1:1-2 is a massive summary statement. Gen. 1:3ff is a restatement of Gen. 1:1-2 with more detail. Gen 2:ff is a restatement of Gen. 1:26ff with yet more detail, etc.

Hope this helps,

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:Hope this helps

Ya! baby! It sure does! thats a great revelation. Thank you!

IRQ Conflict wrote: I also believe that if God wanted us to think that the universe was created over eons as the day-age theory suggests, He would have said so.

The same thing goes for literal interpretation. At the beginning of the Bible there is no note that says "By the way, I did this 6000 years ago". That is an assumption that we make by simply adding up the years of the geneologies. Believe me, I once thought the same way. The fact is that there are gaps in the geneologies: some people who are begotted are grandsons or great grandsons of the previous person, not a direct descendent. This assumption is what has caused a massive divide between the religious and scientific communities when I believe they should work together as this site points out.

My point of revelation where I finally gave up the literal day interpretation was when I began my study of astronomy. Stars that are millions of light years out should not be visible if the universe is only 6000 years old. The light would not have reached us yet. The assumption that literal creationists and evolutionists both make is that because the universe is millions of years old, there is no God. After all, how could God get His own story wrong? This assumption couldn't be more wrong.

There was something else I learned in my study of astronomy and that is that the universe is endlessly complicated. There are only two possibilities: that it was all an accident, or it was done on purpose. Some people like Dawkins try to make up a third category called "designoid". I read the first couple of pages of Mt. Improbable and then dropped it like a rock. If we could go around making up third roads for everything, life would get alot easier. The only conclusion I could come to was that we would not be here unless some higher power wanted us to be here. We simply would not have survived long enough. Those who say that the universe emerged out of chance probably also believe that if I drop cans of paint on the ground that the Mona Lisa will appear.

God gave us a hint that this place is more than a thousand years old in scripture by saying that a thousand years is as a day. The 1st century man could never comprehend the span of a million years, so it was placed in terms he could understand.

1st century man could never comprehend the span of a million years, so it was placed in terms he could understand.

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;

Scientists believe there may be from 2 million to as many as 50 million kinds of animals alive today

link Not to mention anything extinct.

I know how I answer the questions below as an Old Earther. I'd like to know how my Young Earth brothers and sisters answer them. I'm not trying to trap you but I may have some follow-up questions.

1. Genesis 1 - The Fourth Creation day. How do you explain 24 hour days from day 1 - 3 when the astronomical bodies needed to frame that time frame were not in existence?

2. Follow-up to Question 1, what exegetical rules or hermeneutical principles are you introducing in you answer to Question 1 and how do you allow for their application throughout the Creation narrative in other areas?

3. How do you reconcile the differences in the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in terms of chronological order? Obviously, the 2 do not match, so either one must be right (or more right) than the other in terms of context and intent of the writer. On what basis do you decide in favor of the one over the other? Is your evidence for your decision, internal or external to the text?

That's all for now. I promise to answer my own questions for you.

I'd be interested in understanding better why you hold to the position you do.

Thanks,

Bart

Bah! I just saw this and have to work. It will take time and consideration to answer you. But the short of it is that I believe, although not blindly as it would first appear, in a literal interpretation of scriptures. If I have to concede I haven't an answer I will simply rely on what the scriptures tell us. Bah! ....I be pushed out the dooorr.......*

IRQ Conflict wrote:Bah! I just saw this and have to work. It will take time and consideration to answer you. But the short of it is that I believe, although not blindly as it would first appear, in a literal interpretation of scriptures.*

And many who believe in an older Earth such as the Day-Age variety, also believe their interpretations to be quite literal: The Literal Interpretation of the Genesis One Creation Account.

Kurieuo