Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote: macguy,

Just wanted to welcome you to our board. We're glad you're here! I hope you find this to be a helpful community. Any questions just let me know.
Bart

Thank you for the welcome! First, does godandscience believe in the Big Bang theory? I can see the position of old-earth but believing in the big bang is a bit too far IMHO. Not sure whether you wanted me to ask you via pm. If so, then i apologize.

macguy wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: macguy,

Just wanted to welcome you to our board. We're glad you're here! I hope you find this to be a helpful community. Any questions just let me know.
Bart

Thank you for the welcome! First, does godandscience believe in the Big Bang theory? I can see the position of old-earth but believing in the big bang is a bit too far IMHO. Not sure whether you wanted me to ask you via pm. If so, then i apologize.

Macguy,

No problem.

We have individuals here who represent a fairly broad set of beliefs in some regard. If you examine the articles on our main board, by board founder Rich Deem I think you'll find that the Big Bang is generally accepted. In fact, I'm a little surprised that anyone would believe the Big Bang is going"a little too far."

Historically, the Big bang has actually served as a positive argument for creation and supported it better than the previous "Steady State theory" for which no beginning was posited.

It's certainly fair game for discussion and nobody that I'm aware of, would take any offense at being questioned or challenged in this regard if this is an area you want to discuss. I certainly have no problem with a discussion thread or questions in that regard.

Here's a couple of links to articles on our main board about the big bang that you might find interesting. Feel free to respond and interact with them as you wish. Disagreement is fine.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... uttal.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bigbang.html

The big bang is currently the theory most accepted in terms of physical science and astronomy. That means that there is no data to this point that contradicts it. Of course, the nature of science is to adapt and change as necessary when the data demands it and there is always more to learn.

Biblically, I don't see it as in conflict. It demonstrates a point in time where the universe began which supports and agrees with creation. Many young earth creationists would argue with the time span, but still embrace the overall evidence of concept of it.

Hope this helps and answers your question.

Blessings,

Bart

PS - If you do want to discuss this, go ahead and answer here and then I'll take these posts and start a new thread. We're off topic here, but I think Turgy understands and is happy you are here too

Canuckster1127 wrote: We have individuals here who represent a fairly broad set of beliefs in some regard. If you examine the articles on our main board, by board founder Rich Deem I think you'll find that the Big Bang is generally accepted. In fact, I'm a little surprised that anyone would believe the Big Bang is going"a little too far."

I am pretty open-minded and not closed down to just one idea of biblical interpretation of the Scripture. Answers in creation, however, makes it seem like they want to harmonize Scripture with everything Science has to say and they act like evolution is fact. That positions seems very extreme to me. Upholding the authority of science above Scripture so that it can be harmonized . My position on the age of the earth is neither old earth (too old) or young earth (too young). It appears that it's a bit of an exaggeration on the age of the earth.

That's why i thought putting the big bang is far since Scripture doesn't teach anything (maybe i am wrong) about a big bang but just the process of how creation was done.

Historically, the Big bang has actually served as a positive argument for creation and supported it better than the previous "Steady State theory" for which no beginning was posited.

Yes, it's a quite reasonable theory and very good to show that Atheists are going against their "science" friend regarding an infinite universe. However, atheists also use that to their advantage by claiming that solves the problem of God. Then there's the string theory that supposedly backs up the infinite universe idea....

It's certainly fair game for discussion and nobody that I'm aware of, would take any offense at being questioned or challenged in this regard if this is an area you want to discuss. I certainly have no problem with a discussion thread or questions in that regard.

I am not the type of guy who gets offended so don't worry. Thanks, then i have more questions when we get more in-deph. Especially on a global flood if that's okay with you.

The big bang is currently the theory most accepted in terms of physical science and astronomy. That means that there is no data to this point that contradicts it. Of course, the nature of science is to adapt and change as necessary when the data demands it and there is always more to learn.

So IF that data changes and they say the earth is not as old as it appears but not as young either then i guess that wouldn't contradict anything right?

Best Regards,

Macguy

Hello Macguy good to see you

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canuckster1127 wrote:

We have individuals here who represent a fairly broad set of beliefs in some regard. If you examine the articles on our main board, by board founder Rich Deem I think you'll find that the Big Bang is generally accepted. In fact, I'm a little surprised that anyone would believe the Big Bang is going"a little too far."


I am pretty open-minded and not closed down to just one idea of biblical interpretation of the Scripture. Answers in creation, however, makes it seem like they want to harmonize Scripture with everything Science has to say and they act like evolution is fact. That positions seems very extreme to me. Upholding the authority of science above Scripture so that it can be harmonized . My position on the age of the earth is neither old earth (too old) or young earth (too young). It appears that it's a bit of an exaggeration on the age of the earth.

That's why i thought putting the big bang is far since Scripture doesn't teach anything (maybe i am wrong) about a big bang but just the process of how creation was done.

How does the Big Bang Differ from the Process of Creation?

macguy wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: We have individuals here who represent a fairly broad set of beliefs in some regard. If you examine the articles on our main board, by board founder Rich Deem I think you'll find that the Big Bang is generally accepted. In fact, I'm a little surprised that anyone would believe the Big Bang is going"a little too far."

I am pretty open-minded and not closed down to just one idea of biblical interpretation of the Scripture. Answers in creation, however, makes it seem like they want to harmonize Scripture with everything Science has to say and they act like evolution is fact. That positions seems very extreme to me. Upholding the authority of science above Scripture so that it can be harmonized . My position on the age of the earth is neither old earth (too old) or young earth (too young). It appears that it's a bit of an exaggeration on the age of the earth.

That's why i thought putting the big bang is far since Scripture doesn't teach anything (maybe i am wrong) about a big bang but just the process of how creation was done.

Historically, the Big bang has actually served as a positive argument for creation and supported it better than the previous "Steady State theory" for which no beginning was posited.

Yes, it's a quite reasonable theory and very good to show that Atheists are going against their "science" friend regarding an infinite universe. However, atheists also use that to their advantage by claiming that solves the problem of God. Then there's the string theory that supposedly backs up the infinite universe idea....

It's certainly fair game for discussion and nobody that I'm aware of, would take any offense at being questioned or challenged in this regard if this is an area you want to discuss. I certainly have no problem with a discussion thread or questions in that regard.

I am not the type of guy who gets offended so don't worry. Thanks, then i have more questions when we get more in-deph. Especially on a global flood if that's okay with you.

The big bang is currently the theory most accepted in terms of physical science and astronomy. That means that there is no data to this point that contradicts it. Of course, the nature of science is to adapt and change as necessary when the data demands it and there is always more to learn.

So IF that data changes and they say the earth is not as old as it appears but not as young either then i guess that wouldn't contradict anything right?

Best Regards,

Macguy

MacGuy,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Answers in Creation is a pretty reasonable site in my opinion.

I agree with you that it is a danger to attempt to reconcile everything in Science with Scripture.

Scripture comes first for the Christian and science is always in a state of constant change.

I think there are a few things at work in this situation.

1. Scripture isn't a science book. There are a lot of things Scripture doesn't say and when that is the case, there's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with looking to science to understand something. Science isn't infallible and so it's normal that understandings will change in science with more data.

2. Scripture is infallible and inspired. Where it makes a firm statement, as Christians, we need to accept it and should expect it to match scientific truth, where the two overlap. (Which isn't really a whole lot, as the purpose of Scripture while it includes some science, isn't primarily in this area.)

3. While Scriupture is infallible and inspired, our interpretation and understanding of it isn't. Theology is subject to error and correction as well. One example of this from history would be Galileo and Copernicus and their discovery and proof that the earth orbited the son instead of the other way around. Many at the time claimed that Scripture taught geocentrism and so this concept was challenged. Of course, Galileo and Coperniucus were right. Scripture wasn't wrong. A new hermeneutic had to be applied to Scripture to account for the fact that Scripture was written through man from the perspective of the surface of the earth and so what was written was making no scientific claims per se, but simply reporting how it appeared from that perspective.

The age of the earth or the universe is something that is constantly being changed, as more information comes. Just recently, for example, some physicists and astronomers upped the age of the universe from 14.5 billion years, to 15.2 billion. I have no doubt it will continue to adjust and change.

That's the nature of science.

The scripture really doesn't say anything about the age of the earth or the universe. The popular 6,000 year Ussher Chronology is not a statement by the Bible but rather an inference, drawn from geneologies. They also presume that the earth and the universe were all created with 7 literal 24 hour days. If the Ussher Chronology is wrong does that mean the Bible is wrong? Again, no. It simply means Ussher relied upon a wrong interpretation of Scripture.

There's dangers in running to reinterpret Scripture everytime something in science appears to change. I try to keep that in mind myself.

In terms of the age of the earth and the universe, I tend to believe the evidence is from so many different disciplines and so overwhelming that it is just not possible for the Young Earth Creationist interpretation to be correct. I'm passionate about that, because I believe the effort to resist it from many Christians, while well intentioned and honorable is misdirected, unnecessary and frankly can serve as an impediment to the Gospel.

But, it is not a cardinal doctrine. It's important, but brothers in Christ can disagree on it and still be saved.

I hope that helps and feel free to point out where you think these observations may be weak.

Bart

Here is RTB's response... And my view too. Hope this helps..

Big Bang - The Bible Taught It First!

By Hugh Ross and John Rea

Most science textbooks that address cosmology credit Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson with the discovery that the universe arose from a hot big bang creation event. While it is true that they were the first (1965) to detect the radiation left over from the creation event,1 they were not the first scientists to recognize that the universe expanded from an extremely hot and compact state. In 1946 George Gamow calculated that nothing less than the universe expanding from a near infinitely hot condition could account for the present abundance of elements.2 In 1929 observations made by Edwin Hubble established that the velocities of galaxies result from a general expansion of the universe.3 Beginning in 1925 Abbé Georges Lemaître, who was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest, was the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.4

The first direct scientific evidence for a big bang universe dates back to 1916. That is when Albert Einstein noted that his field equations of general relativity predicted an expanding universe.5 Unwilling to accept the cosmic beginning implied by such expansion, Einstein altered his theory to conform with the common wisdom of his day, namely an eternally existing universe.6

All these scientists, however, were upstaged by 2500 years and more by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible's prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, “This is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out.”

The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara' which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before.”7 The proclamation that God created (bara') the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18 ). This principle of transcendent creation is made more explicit by passages like Hebrews 11:3 which states that the universe that we humans can measure and detect was made out of that which we cannot measure or detect. Also, Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:15-17 stipulate that God alone is the agent for the universe's existence. Biblical claims that God predated the universe and was actively involved in causing certain effects before the existence of the universe is not only found in Colossians 1 but also in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and 1 Peter 1:20.

The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its being “stretched out.” Five different Bible authors pen such a statement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18 appears to be a twelfth verse. However, the word used for “heavens” or “skies” is shehaqîm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth's atmosphere,8 not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.9 Three of the eleven verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.

What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different Hebrew verb forms are used to describe the cosmic stretching. Seven verses, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; and Zechariah 12:1 employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching. Four verses, Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 use the Qal perfect form. This form literally means that the stretching of the heavens was completed or finished some time ago.

That the Bible really does claim that the stretching out of the heavens is both “finished” and “ongoing” is made all the more evident in Isaiah 40:22. There we find two different verbs used in two different forms. In the first of the final two parallel poetic lines, “stretches out” is the verb natah in the Qal active participle form. In the second (final) line the verb “spreads them out” (NASB, NIV, NKJV) is mathah (used only this one time in the Old Testament) in the waw consecutive plus Qal imperfect form, so that literally we might translate it “and he has spread them out . . .” The participles in lines one and three of Isaiah 40:22 characterize our sovereign God by His actions in all times, sitting enthroned above the earth and stretching out the heavens, constantly exercising his creative power in His ongoing providential work. This characterization is continued with reference to the past by means of waw consecutive with the imperfect, the conversive form indicating God's completed act of spreading out the heavens. That is, this one verse literally states that God is both continuing to stretch out the heavens and has stretched them out.

This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is identical to the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. According to the big bang, at the creation event all the physics (specifically, the laws, constants, and equations of physics) are instantly created, designed, and finished so as to guarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe at exactly the right rates with respect to time so that physical life will be possible.

This biblical claim for simultaneously finished and ongoing acts of creation, incidentally, is not limited to just the universe's expansion. The same claim, for example, is made for God's laying Earth's foundations (Isaiah 51:3; Zechariah 12:1). This is consistent with the geophysical discovery that certain long-lived radiometric elements were placed into the earth's crust a little more than four billion years ago in just the right quantities so as to guarantee the continual building of continents.

Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation. As explained in two Reasons To Believe books,10 even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/20 ... t_it_first

Big Bang Breakthrough: Ripples Reach Headlines

http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/92 ... _headlines

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Answers in Creation is a pretty reasonable site in my opinion.

To some extent, it is reasonable but do you actually agree with their stance on evolution? Come to think of it, most don't believe in evolution but some do.

The scripture really doesn't say anything about the age of the earth or the universe. The popular 6,000 year Ussher Chronology is not a statement by the Bible but rather an inference, drawn from geneologies. They also presume that the earth and the universe were all created with 7 literal 24 hour days. If the Ussher Chronology is wrong does that mean the Bible is wrong? Again, no. It simply means Ussher relied upon a wrong interpretation of Scripture.

I never really thought that the genealogies prove that Scripture teaches such things because i don't believe it says that it's a complete genealogy.

In terms of the age of the earth and the universe, I tend to believe the evidence is from so many different disciplines and so overwhelming that it is just not possible for the Young Earth Creationist interpretation to be correct. I'm passionate about that, because I believe the effort to resist it from many Christians, while well intentioned and honorable is misdirected, unnecessary and frankly can serve as an impediment to the Gospel.

I'm passionate about the over-exaggeration of the old earth and young earth claims. Both positions seem somewhat absurd to me. The dates are constantly changing and this leaves me to be an agnostic on the age of the earth. It's obvious that they are using fallible human methods to interpret the dates because they keep changing the date. Whether they are getting more accurate is possible but it's negation is just as possible.

Young earth belief has been actually a big stumbling block for atheists/agnostics who think most christians support that view and they say that Genesis is why they are atheists! It's quite unfair to blame these state of affairs on Science as some christians do.

But, it is not a cardinal doctrine. It's important, but brothers in Christ can disagree on it and still be saved.

Yes, i agree because this is where it gets dangerous when one calls someone a non-believer. We will ultimately know who's a christian or not by observing knowing their fruits. YEC do have good intentions but they hardly answer critics but it might be due to their inability to do so. It's actually good to rebuke false teaching but at the same time we should do it with sincerity. If they don't want to be corrected then that just shows pride and ignorance in my opinion.

I hope that helps and feel free to point out where you think these observations may be weak.

I completely concur with your three points. By the way, what are your takes on the string theory? Is it the same as Hugh Ross's? I'll be writing on Noah's ark soon. Another question comes to mind, can someone like me submit articles to godandscience? I apologize for all the ignorant questions but i am just curious


--Macguy--

Gman wrote:Big Bang Breakthrough: Ripples Reach Headlines

http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/92 ... _headlines

Thanks, i'll be sure to look at the links. Whose the owner of this website? Is it by any chance you?

Noah's ark? Here is a debate about the Local Flood vs the Global Flood if you want to comment on that: http://discussions.godandscience.org/about2551.html

Take care...

Just saw your post there, sorry..

macguy wrote:

Gman wrote:Big Bang Breakthrough: Ripples Reach Headlines

http://www.reasons.org/resources/faf/92 ... _headlines

Thanks, i'll be sure to look at the links. Whose the owner of this website? Is it by any chance you?

Nope, not me. It's from Reason's to Believe by Hugh Ross..

Gman wrote:Noah's ark? Here is a debate about the Local Flood vs the Global Flood if you want to comment on that: http://discussions.godandscience.org/about2551.html

Take care...

Yup, i noticed that link which is something that i was planning on replying to


--Macguy--

Gman wrote:Nope, not me. it's from Reason's to Believe by Hugh Ross..

*cough* I meant to say if you were the owner of godandscience. Sorry for the confusion.

macguy wrote:

Gman wrote:Nope, not me. it's from Reason's to Believe by Hugh Ross..

*cough* I meant to say if you were the owner of godandscience. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem... That would be Rich Deem. http://www.godandscience.org/contact.html

I never met him, but he use to work with RTB.. So I guess you know where he may get some of his stuff now...

Take care Mac..