Evidence for God from Science

it was mentioned that creation with age would be a deceptive practice but i disagree. we know that to be practical and to sustain life, that many things had to be created with age: the sun, moon, stars, original species, adam and eve etc.

what doyou think? and why?

God may allow us to be deceived, but He is not the deceiver. We deceive ourselves, we are deceived by our enemies, we are deceived by our lack of understanding.

Is it deceit if God has chosen the simple things to confound the wise? Or if God makes foolish the wisdom of the wise? This question really is bigger than the creationism issue.

I will reply with more, I answered but have not explained. I will, though

TO me, understanding the history/age of the universe is similar to a crime scence. We have to observe and examine the evidence at the scene.

IF we examine a scene and conclude that the butler did it based on the evidence, and then somebody comes in and says, no, no, the evidence is planted, the maid did it. In other words, the evidence is not trustworthy.

Any theory that ultimately says we can't trust multiple pieces of evidence is worrisome to me. I feel as if this theory says that God is tiptoeing in and adding evidence to the crime scene. Now, I suppose He could, but I also wonder why this bothers us that the universe could be old?

Anyway, regards

If one was to take a strict creationist point of view, it can easily be argued that it was absolutely necessary for God to create the earth, the planets and the stars with age. Its not a question of deception, it is a necessity.

For example, it is known stars and planets have life-cycles. If the stars were created young, they would all be proto-stars or perhaps young, small, blue-white dwarf stars which are very hot. Hot enough to incinerate the young, newly created earth. There would be no yellow stars, no red giants, no black holes, nor neutron stars. In fact we would not even see most the stars because, due to their vast distances, their light would not have reached us yet. Assuming a 6000 year old earth, the light of the milky way will not reach us for another 18,000 years (galactic center). The beautiful Andromeda galaxy? Forget it. Its light won't reach here for millions of years and its in our galactic neighborhood.

As for a proto-planet, it could not sustain life. It would likely have no atmosphere, or a poisonous one. Billions of accretion particles, and rocks would be bombarding its surface and the dense core materials would not have had time to fully subduct into the center of planet.

If the first life was created as young, then how were they cared for, who nursed them? Adam and Eve (as infants) would rest in the shade of the saplings and budding twigs because they have not yet matured into trees.

So maybe the creationist point of view is simply this: God brought all things into existence at a point in time, as if they had been there all along. And in a way...they were: in his heart and mind waiting for him to speak, "Let there be..."

TO me, understanding the history/age of the universe is similar to a crime scence. We have to observe and examine the evidence at the scene

creation isn't a crime scene and the example doesn't relate to what was done--try again.

we can't trust multiple pieces of evidence is worrisome to me.

you are ignoring the source for such evidence and evidence gathering. who says those sources are correct or even close to correct?

Now, I suppose He could, but I also wonder why this bothers us that the universe could be old?

it doesn't bother me

I feel as if this theory says that God is tiptoeing in and adding evidence to the crime scene

how is He or could He add evidence? the act is long over.

So maybe the creationist point of view is simply this

i would agree with you on yourpost and just add, that even if there was a gap your point would hold true. the act of creation could not have been millions of years ago as there is nothing to support it though itis highly possible that the details were done recently while the vast universe and planets were done long, long long ago.

Forum Monk wrote:If one was to take a strict creationist point of view, it can easily be argued that it was absolutely necessary for God to create the earth, the planets and the stars with age. Its not a question of deception, it is a necessity.

For example, it is known stars and planets have life-cycles. If the stars were created young, they would all be proto-stars or perhaps young, small, blue-white dwarf stars which are very hot. Hot enough to incinerate the young, newly created earth. There would be no yellow stars, no red giants, no black holes, nor neutron stars. In fact we would not even see most the stars because, due to their vast distances, their light would not have reached us yet. Assuming a 6000 year old earth, the light of the milky way will not reach us for another 18,000 years (galactic center). The beautiful Andromeda galaxy? Forget it. Its light won't reach here for millions of years and its in our galactic neighborhood.

As for a proto-planet, it could not sustain life. It would likely have no atmosphere, or a poisonous one. Billions of accretion particles, and rocks would be bombarding its surface and the dense core materials would not have had time to fully subduct into the center of planet.

If the first life was created as young, then how were they cared for, who nursed them? Adam and Eve (as infants) would rest in the shade of the saplings and budding twigs because they have not yet matured into trees.

So maybe the creationist point of view is simply this: God brought all things into existence at a point in time, as if they had been there all along. And in a way...they were: in his heart and mind waiting for him to speak, "Let there be..."

Stars, light, planets, not what I worry about....but what about the evidence on the earth? the geological record, dating, rates of island development, fossils, air samples in ice, etc....

I don't agree that these are from the flood, so tht may be an obvious point of disagreement. For the sake of arguement, though, if these aren't from the flood, then these are pieces of evidence that lead of to the conclusion that the earth is old, and that means they aren't trustworthy.

zoegirl wrote:I don't agree that these are from the flood, so tht may be an obvious point of disagreement. For the sake of arguement, though, if these aren't from the flood, then these are pieces of evidence that lead of to the conclusion that the earth is old, and that means they aren't trustworthy.

Hi z/g.
I dont think you mean this, in the way I interpret it. Are you saying the evidences which are interpreted as "old earth" are untrustworthy? I don't quite follow your line of reasoning.

Forum Monk wrote:

zoegirl wrote:I don't agree that these are from the flood, so tht may be an obvious point of disagreement. For the sake of arguement, though, if these aren't from the flood, then these are pieces of evidence that lead of to the conclusion that the earth is old, and that means they aren't trustworthy.

Hi z/g.
I dont think you mean this, in the way I interpret it. Are you saying the evidences which are interpreted as "old earth" are untrustworthy? I don't quite follow your line of reasoning.

No I think they are trustworthy and point to an old earth. I am definitley an OEC

But those that say the earth is young with apparent age say that God created the earth with these pieces of evidence already there. But why would God need to create fossils of animals that never lived? Why create a geological record that seems to point to an old earth? To me, either these records are accurate and true and trustworty or they aren't, God made something that wansn't true to testimony. The God in Scripture is to be trusted and so also His creation

Ahhh. Now I follow. Thanks for clarifying your position.

But why would God need to create fossils of animals that never lived?

you are assuming that the fossils were made over a long period of time and that God created them in that position? the first question to be asked is, why would He do that?

second question is, why would fossils have to develope over a long period of time?

Why create a geological record that seems to point to an old earth

does it point to an old earth or to the creative act? it is assumed that it points to an old earth, there still are other possibilities.

God made something that wansn't true to testimony

no, you are saying God did something which wasn't true to what you THINK the testimony is, not to what wasn't true to THE testimony.

The God in Scripture is to be trusted and so also His creation

only half that is right. due to the fall of man, creation is not perfect and is not God.

To me, either these records are accurate and true and trustworty or they aren't

they are but it all depends on what you ascribe the evidence to. there is a possibility that there is an old earth but it is also possible that there isn't. age had to be part of the creation act at some point in time.

archaeologist wrote:we know that to be practical and to sustain life, that many things had to be created with age: the sun, moon, stars, original species, adam and eve etc.

Forum Monk wrote:If one was to take a strict creationist point of view, it can easily be argued that it was absolutely necessary for God to create the earth, the planets and the stars with age. Its not a question of deception, it is a necessity.

We "know" this and can "easily ... argue" this only if "we" assume that God's capabilities are limited. If the only type of sun that God can create must obey the astrophysicist's model, then yes, it follows that God is forced to create with age. The laws of gravity, electromagnetism etc then must constrain God's creativeness.
Why couldn't God have created a universe 6000 years ago that today looks 6000 years old?

sandy_mcd wrote:We "know" this and can "easily ... argue" this only if "we" assume that God's capabilities are limited. If the only type of sun that God can create must obey the astrophysicist's model, then yes, it follows that God is forced to create with age. The laws of gravity, electromagnetism etc then must constrain God's creativeness.

In my opinion, it is a question of ethics as to whether God would violate his own laws (physical laws are laws afterall). (Of course, built into the universe of laws would be such provisions that manifest as miracles.)

Why couldn't God have created a universe 6000 years ago that today looks 6000 years old?

I don't follow your point. Firstly, we all agree God can do anything, secondly, according to what we DO know scientifically, the sun does not look 6000 years old. So where does that leave us?

(1) The sun IS actually 6000 years old and everything we know about astrophysics is wrong.
(2) It is actually 6000 years old but he made it 'mature' much like he created Adam and Eve as adults and not children
(3) It is billions of years old.

If maintaining literal biblical truth at all costs is your only goal then I suppose this is the only way to go. The Hindu religion believes that the world we perceive is maya (the imagination of the gods) which allows alot of leeway to dispute scientific rationalism too. What about this for an idea? The bible is wrong! It might be, plenty of devout Christians cherry pick the bible (it saves you from getting circumsised, stoning apostates and homosexuals to death etc) so maybe there is a bit of the bible left out or misunderstood or translated incorrectly. Couldn't the first day in Genesis be 14,000,000,000,000 years long as there was no sun to rise - something like that.

tj rich wrote:If maintaining literal biblical truth at all costs is your only goal then I suppose this is the only way to go.

True. But what is debated in this merger of scientific and theological thought is, where do the lines between literal and allegorical expression get drawn with respect to the Bible?

The Hindu religion believes that the world we perceive is maya (the imagination of the gods) which allows alot of leeway to dispute scientific rationalism too.

I'll take your word for it. I really know very little about Hinduism.

What about this for an idea? The bible is wrong! It might be, plenty of devout Christians cherry pick the bible (it saves you from getting circumsised, stoning apostates and homosexuals to death etc) so maybe there is a bit of the bible left out or misunderstood or translated incorrectly.

Actually you are right. This is not a shocking idea. Many religious people do cherry pick and only listen to those who tell them what they want to hear. See, if one can mould 'absolute' truth to ones personal lifestyle there is no need to acknowledge that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Its not the Bible that is wrong in this case.

Couldn't the first day in Genesis be 14,000,000,000,000 years long as there was no sun to rise - something like that.

That would be approaching option three in my previous post.