Evidence for God from Science

Hello, I need some serious help.

Is there anyone who can shine some light, it seems I picked a battle with a far educated individual.

http://forums.military.com/groupee/foru ... 0068360001

tyler_demerhcant wrote:Hello, I need some serious help.

Is there anyone who can shine some light, it seems I picked a battle with a far educated individual.

http://forums.military.com/groupee/foru ... 0068360001

Welcome Tyler.

I checked out your thread.

You have indeed landed yourself in a location with a challenge in front of you.

I would suggest a few things that you might find helpful:

1. Don't pretend to know more than you do. There's nothing wrong with not being an expert in a particular field especially at age 19. Thankfully, there's a cure for this situation. It's called education. That takes time and commitment. There's a lot to be said for lurking for a while, checking the links others use and then doing your own research and then wading into the fray after you've had some time to get used to what is going on.

2. When debating on a bulletin board, you rarely add much to the content of your communications by using caps and exclamation points. If fact, in that context, it is seen as shouting and it usually will leave it appearing to the others involved on the thread as trying to make up in volume for what is lacked in content.

3. If you don't understand something, don't be afraid to state that and ask for help. Some Boards are at a high enough level you may be asked not to post in view of that. That's the worst that can happen. More often than not, some will be patient and help you. At worst, you can continue to lurk and maybe private message with people to understand things if there are some open to that.

4. Understand that the term "Creation Science" carries a lot of baggage. Most secular scientists when they hear that immediately assume you are a young earth creationist and they very rightly point out the following:

A. True science does not begin to examine evidence with a conclusion already drawn as to what the outcome or resultant conclusion will be. You certainly may have a guess, or hypothesis, but you agree to abide by the outcome of your experiment or study should it require you to discard that guess or modify it.

B. Much of creationism is more in the realm of Philosophy than the sciences, because the existence of a creator cannot be scientifically proven.

C. Much of Creationism (and specifically Young Earth Creationism, in my opinion) is in opposition to some key areas of science because of a specific manner in which they interpret the key Biblical passages of Genesis 1 & 2. Before you begin to enter into this fray, again in my opinion, you should spend a great deal of time, prayerfully examining this passage, the history of it's interpretation within Christianity and Judaism and seek to understand the different approaches that are there. Ask yourself, why about 95% of the scientific community accepts an old earth and then ask yourself why there would be such a seeming disconnect between what God would say in his inspired, revealed word (which I affirm by the way) and the creation that shows his influence and handiwork.

D. That having been said, there is nothing to say that Science cannot be a very powerful tool in supporting a creationist position (Young, Old, Progressive, Theistic evolutionism representing a broad spectrum of that general position). Realize that what you are doing in that situation is seeking to show where those who claim science as a foundation for atheism or even agnosticism, are doing similar things to what they claim creationists do. Theism and Creationism are not irrational positions. There are leaps and presuppositions that take place in coming to many final positions. The same things happen in so-called scientific conclusions as well. The point, again, in my opinion, is to be able to recognize where there are those leaps and presuppositions kicking in on the other side and seek to respectfully keep them honest.

A small example is in the area of the fossil record. Many forms of creationism seek to explain the lack of transition fossils found to date by claiming that that is inferred evidence of God's supernatural and miraculous intervention. Scientists, rightly again in my opinion, then state that this is not a scientific argument as is can not be proven to the satisfaction of a skeptic with direct evidence. On the other hand, evolutionists themselves have some vast differences of opinion in how they interpret the existing record and the gaps that exist. Darwin's original theory called for slow adaptation over a long period of time. More recently there has been the introduction of what is called punctuated equilibrium which offers as an explanation the possibility that the evolution process itself includes large leaps from one form to another and that this may provide an explanation for the seeming gaps that exist.

In other words, there's a similar inferring from a lack of evidence that may, when viewed in a certain way, provide evidence of scientists coming to conclusions in a similar way to what many criticize creationist for doing.

Once you have these understandings as a platform you'll probably fare much better that just wandering into the lion's den announcing you're a creationist and taking on all comers.

Sorry if that sounds pedantic. I'm not trying to talk down, to you. It just seems to me that that may be what you need to hear.

Most importantly, you can do a lot of your learning here. This is a great place for the type of learning I've been mentioning and this is a much friendlier place to get oriented than the other location you've jumped into.

Just a thought.

In Christ,

Bart

Thanks, definately what I already know.

Ha, I like being challenged, even if it draws questions into my faith.

I do believe in a young earth and have just recently ventured into this whole realm.

I reviewed the articles that he posted and I am quite skeptic of them. CAn anyone point me into the direction of where I might find some solid facts about inconsistancy in both Radioactive dating as well as the geological layer theary. I know I have read material on it before, but I would like some solid information provided by some GEologists who believe in a young earth as to show more logic to the man I am speaking with.

I meant that You are right, this is unchartered territory for me, i know.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:Thanks, definately what I already know.

Ha, I like being challenged, even if it draws questions into my faith.

I do believe in a young earth and have just recently ventured into this whole realm.

I reviewed the articles that he posted and I am quite skeptic of them. CAn anyone point me into the direction of where I might find some solid facts about inconsistancy in both Radioactive dating as well as the geological layer theary. I know I have read material on it before, but I would like some solid information provided by some GEologists who believe in a young earth as to show more logic to the man I am speaking with.

Well, there are plenty of those sites around. I frankly can't recommend any, as I respectfully disagree with their positions, but likely some others reading this thread could give you their thoughts in that regard.

I suggest you look carefully at the main home of this board at, http://www.godandscience.org as well. There is a lot of very good information that specifically answers many of the claims of Young Earth Creationism both from Science and in the Bible.

I used to be a young earth creationist. I've since changed my mind and am now an old earth creationist.

I don't think it is an issue that raises to the level of salvation for anyone. I hope, as you explore this and especally as you take your positions to non-Christian boards that you keep in mind that a Young Earth Position is not required to be a Christian and further that you'll give consideration to an old earth position as you work with some of the responses you will no doubt receive.

Be prepared for some stiff opposition and be prepared to work hard to give answers to skeptical non-christians.

Along those lines, Tyler, how old do you believe the earth is, and why?

tyler_demerhcant wrote:Hello, I need some serious help.

Is there anyone who can shine some light, it seems I picked a battle with a far educated individual.

http://forums.military.com/groupee/foru ... 0068360001

You might find this thread helpful.
=)

well i believe in a young earth quite frankly because that is how I was taught. It makes sence to me... Should I not.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:well i believe in a young earth quite frankly because that is how I was taught. It makes sence to me... Should I not.

I understand that we sometimes hold to positions since that is how we were taught, but I am really after what evidence you have seen that convinced you that young earth is the correct position. When you say it makes sense, why does it make sense? And how old do you think the earth is, and what is your supporting facts for that? What were the things you were taught?

The reason I ask is that before anyone here can really help you, we must first try to understand what you believe and why. In that way, we can have have the discussion here in a friendlier environment before you venture out to take on the challengers. As Canuckster said, it is important for you to know what the counterarguments are, both from an atheistic/naturalistic, and old-earth perspective, and also what your primary arguments are. If you enter a debate with "that is the way I was taught" as your evidence, that won't go very far.

That is what I mean by unchartered territory.

I have serious questions with the old earth thearies
-Radiometrics (I think it is called)
-Fossilization time periods
-layer to age (what is it called?)

For example, old earth theary tells us that dinosaurs wre extinct long ago, yet the bible clearly describes dinosaurs.

I will be researching these topics which have support for the young earth.

I have 2 questions.

Firstly- What does the bible tell us about the age of the earth?

Secondly- Why is young earth theary discluded from ID?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... 6/0303.asp

I find stuff like this.

Now i could quote everything, but unless I were to get my own PHD no-one would ever contemplate my research but instantly reject it.

tyler_demerhcant wrote:http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... 6/0303.asp

I find stuff like this.

Now I could quote everything, but unless I were to get my own PHD no-one would ever contemplate my research but instantly reject it.

Tyler,

No-one expects you to do your own independent research and appealing to another web-site that you find convincing or raises issues that you want answers to is a perfectly legitimate way of discussing the issue. The important thing, I think is to pause after you get an answer and think for yourself about that answer. Some will simply take the answer and either ignore it or find a rebuttal from the same site or another and fight like it is an argument to be won or lost. There's a time and a place for that and you'll find a lot of discussions like that here and elsewhere.

If you're trying to learn, then take some time and think things through and ask yourself what you believe about the Bible, about science, about theology and about the natural world.

Here's something I've found very helpful over the years.

If God created the World and God inspired the Bible, then doesn't it make sense that what His Bible says about creation would have to always be right?

Put it this way: Truth in the Bible = Truth in Creation (of nature)

What is Science? Science is man's attempt to interpret and understand creation.

What is Theology? Theology is man's attempt to interpret and understand God as revealed through the Bible.

Do you see what Science and Theology have in common? Both are man's interpretation. Man is imperfect.

So Science and Theology conflict quite regularly.

The question when that happens is whether the mistakes are in the realm of science, in the realm of theology or as often may be the case; Both.

Start with that. Does that make sense to you?

Let's say I wanted to argue on behalf of the "young earth" point of view. I really could not support my argument with any generally accepted scientific reasoning. It would not, however, be improper for me to say, though, that God is capable of a 6 day creation and that God is sovereign, and unless I interpret Genesis incorrectly, I believe that is the way it happened. No science necessary. My God is certainly capable!
There is no need to muck up a statement of faith with any scientific reasoning and I really don't think that faith can be argued against on a scientific basis. Will there be ridicule? Probably.

So what? What does Scripture say when we are persecuted?

If on the other hand, you wanted to argue the "old earth" point of view, you must be prepared to defend that some of Scripture has been mistranslated (the "yom" thing) but you will be better able to align your argument with most, if not all, of proven science.

I must admit that I am not entrenched in either position, but I state simply that I really am not sure. I'll leave the method of Creation to God. He alone knows all the facts. He does not need my limited intellect to embellish what He has provided by His Word.

What I do enjoy, however, is bashing Darwinism. To say that it has been proven is a lie. Simply ask anyone to give you proof of one trans-species jump. They can not. They aver that it has occured millions of times, yet can not produce "proof' of one.

People will always ask you to "prove" the existence of God. Romans 1 leads me to believe that His existence is evident based on what we see in His Creation. That's the good part.

The bad part: "Professing to be wise, they became fools".

Don't let it happen to you.

Thankyou all for your comments.
Believe me I hold them all in contemplation.
I am glad I have discovered this sight, it is giving me great insight.

I know Evolution is false with many gaps.

I do keep an open mind and enjoy very much the descusions of these. You all make very good points.

I still believe in the absolute word of God, and that the earth is very young so I ask one question. Is there feasible proof that can prove that creation did not happen?

Both Creation and Evolution have two serious faults. Both are impossible according to science. IT must be one or the other right? But If evolution is impossible and creation is impossible, than scientificly, life does not exist.

THat is my contemplation, yet here we are, livng and breathing, thinking and plotting and feeling and desiring and living!

Ponder this!

Love In Christ

TYler DEmerchant

(I have a serious problem with holding the shift key to long )

Tim S wrote:Let's say I wanted to argue on behalf of the "young earth" point of view. I really could not support my argument with any generally accepted scientific reasoning. It would not, however, be improper for me to say, though, that God is capable of a 6 day creation and that God is sovereign, and unless I interpret Genesis incorrectly, I believe that is the way it happened. No science necessary. My God is certainly capable!
There is no need to muck up a statement of faith with any scientific reasoning and I really don't think that faith can be argued against on a scientific basis. Will there be ridicule? Probably.

So what? What does Scripture say when we are persecuted?

If on the other hand, you wanted to argue the "old earth" point of view, you must be prepared to defend that some of Scripture has been mistranslated (the "yom" thing) but you will be better able to align your argument with most, if not all, of proven science.

I must admit that I am not entrenched in either position, but I state simply that I really am not sure. I'll leave the method of Creation to God. He alone knows all the facts. He does not need my limited intellect to embellish what He has provided by His Word.

What I do enjoy, however, is bashing Darwinism. To say that it has been proven is a lie. Simply ask anyone to give you proof of one trans-species jump. They can not. They aver that it has occured millions of times, yet can not produce "proof' of one.

People will always ask you to "prove" the existence of God. Romans 1 leads me to believe that His existence is evident based on what we see in His Creation. That's the good part.

The bad part: "Professing to be wise, they became fools".

Don't let it happen to you.

Well, that is true as far as it goes. Everyone is free to believe what they wish.

I agree that no-one can prove or disprove the existence of God.

I do think that as far as the age of the earth goes, there's ample evidence for a reasonable person to believe it to be old based on the physical evidence and based on the Biblical record.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that no scientist, not one that I am aware of anyway, has ever come to the conclusion that the earth is young ie 10,000 years or less based on the physical evidence alone.

Young Earth Creationists like to believe that an old earth position just came about recently in the scientific age. That just isn't true. Old earth has been a part of Church and Judaic History for a long, long time. Young earthers would like to try and frame the debate with old earthers being compromisers and Young Earther's being the defenders of the Bible. It just doesn't work out that way.

Science is not an enemy of the Church or of faith. It is corallary knowledge. How you interpret that knowledge and weave it into your world view is more the issue.

All else being equal, I rely upon scripture first and foremost as an element of my faith and understanding. When Science shows convincingly that there may be a flaw, I think it is legitimate to re-evaluate and look at those beliefs. It may be that the science is wrong however and there are certainly instances where that is true.

I think we need as Christians to understand what evolution is and is not.

I really get embarrassed when I see Christians who don't understand what they are arguing about, attempting to use foolish arguments like "Evolution is just a theory." The word "theory" in science means a lot more than how we try to use the word in debate.

Evolution has a lot behind it that any reasonable person should not have difficulty following and believing. Mutations and changes over time are clearly defined and observed in many different situations. Bacteria, Virii, dog breeding etc show that changes within species have occured and are observable.

The fossil record is becoming more complete over time and there are some elements of what is being found that reasonably does support some of the claims and speculations made. How far is open to argument and certainly more is often claimed than is reasonable and it is right to challenge those things.

More later. I hope that helps some.