Evidence for God from Science

Thanks to other users on this board, i have begun to question my OEC stance. For a long time, i had maintained that the days in Genesis referred to longer periods of time. I still (kind of) believe that.

However, in exodus (don't remember exactly), in the ten commandments when commanding us to remember the sabbath day, the writers says somethign to the effect of, for God made the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, so you shall toil for six and rest.... (biggest paraphrase ever).

So, i began to think. All the bible, in my humble opinion seems to point to a young earth. All of science points to an old earth. I am torn. I can make science and the bible mesh, but the above verse would seem to be a conflict. Any thoughts?

So, i began to think. All the bible, in my humble opinion seems to point to a young earth. All of science points to an old earth

i am niether a young earth creationist nor an old earth one simply for the fact that we donot know exactly when BUT i do hold to a young earth detail framework.

we know in archaeology there really is only about 10,000 years of human history beyond that is pure speculation and wishful thinking. one thing is for sure, a person cannot use bishop ussher as a reference to the true date. ussher made some mistakes, omitted pieces of data, which he admitted to in his book, and did not have the knowledgeof how the geneologies were written in the old testament.

plus we do not know how long adam and eve spent in the garden before the fall or when adam's age count was started. there is a lot we do not know.

WE DO KNOW that: 1. evolution was not used; 2. natural selection was not used; 3. that God would be a hypocrite if He used ages instead of real days; 4. that it is possible for a gap or a creation with age. neither are deceptive or take away from the 6 day creation act. 5. science is not the final authority or determiner of what took place.

anyways i aminterested to see how this board will react to the above comments of enigma

Thanks, arch, i knew i could count on you...

we know in archaeology there really is only about 10,000 years of human history beyond that is pure speculation and wishful thinking.

Do you have a source for that so i could a dig a little bit farther? Thanks.

I do understand how Genesis could be interpreted in an old earth framework, and i still lean a little in that direction. HOWEVER, the only reason to attempt to interpret it that way would be to coincide it with science. It seems, at least at face value, to point to a young earth. Plus, many of the articles on this website seem to be very able to explain the OEC world.
Some articles are also good against YEC

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.php

I don't know a lot about astronomy, but i will pose some questions. Those who know more, please advise.

We measure astronomical distances in light-years. THis is related to the creation with age thought. If a star is thirty million (or whatever) light years away, then God must have created the light already en route for it to reach us (If we are YEC).

However, Is it possible that light travels faster than we thought? Or is there a different way of measuring astronomical distances i am unaware of?

WE DO KNOW that: 1. evolution was not used; 2. natural selection was not used; 3. that God would be a hypocrite if He used ages instead of real days; 4. that it is possible for a gap or a creation with age. neither are deceptive or take away from the 6 day creation act. 5. science is not the final authority or determiner of what took place.

I agree with 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, i agree with 5.

Natural selection, if i understand it right, just says that the creature best suited for the environment will survive and reproduce. This is the reason why some animals are extinct (though not the reason for all extinct animals.)

He very well could have used ages instead of days. But he says evening and morning??? I don't know. Not an expert.

Creation with age seems a little deceptive to me. No need for it. Some people will say, well the sun needs to be around for X number of years to be able to sustain life. So? Why wouldn't God let it sit around for X number of years? That's an OEC standpoint. Makes sense to me.

The fact that science is NOT the final authority is the very reason i post this forum.

plus we do not know how long adam and eve spent in the garden before the fall or when adam's age count was started. there is a lot we do not know.

Never thought of that...

Do you have a source for that so i could a dig a little bit farther? Thanks.

i do but i am not at home so that will have to wait till later.

HOWEVER, the only reason to attempt to interpret it that way would be to coincide it with science

as you found out, one cannot interpret creation via the genesis account alone. the whole Bible speaks to what God had done and no where does it support an OEC theory.

many of the articles on this website seem to be very able to explain the OEC world.
Some articles are also good against YEC

one thing about interpretation is that when looking at an article on scripture one must determine if it fits with what God is saying thorughout the book. then you look at their sources, if they have any, are they credible do they have an axe to grind, a pet theory they want to prove and so on. so far the only resource i have seen here has been Strong's concordance, not a heavy weight plus it doesn't stand alone as a definitive work or is accepted by the majority of scholars.

there is a lot of work whenit comes to interpreting what God is saying. there is more, i just have a headache right now.

I don't know a lot about astronomy

neither do i so i am not a good resource here. as for your questions, most likely He did do that as the stars are listed in the 6 day creation as well as the sun. anyting is possible so yes the speed of light could be faster than figured but then i am not an expert there either. one thing i do know is that you have to take such calculations with a grain of salt. yes they may be right BUT and it is a big but because the source is usually coming from unregenerated minds succeptable to deceivement and we shuld not blindly accept such thoughts as believers.

Natural selection, if i understand it right, just says that the creature best suited for the environment will survive and reproduce

that is not what creation says. remember at 'the fall of man' corruption and death entered into the world (which is why we know it was perfect and not just normal good). genetics has little to do with it as does the enviornment. we know that animals can live in different extremes as long as they have the proper food and shelter.

This is the reason why some animals are extinct (though not the reason for all extinct animals.)

animals are extinct because manhunted them to death. greed also plays a part in the equation along with lust. also there are poisons, accidents, mishaps and so on which play a larger part than genetics does. if you read the bible closely, you will see that NImrod is described as a mighty hunter, i am sure he wasn't the only one. after the flood, God gave anmals to man for food, so what do you expect to take place?

He very well could have used ages instead of days. But he says evening and morning??? I don't know. Not an expert.

think about it. if God told israel to work six days and rest the seventh but He didn't do it HImself--what would you call it? the Bible is not a 'do as i say not as i do' book.

why not #4. it is as big a possibilty as any other and it illustrates what we do not know about time or when God does something. time is not important.

Creation with age seems a little deceptive to me

why? practicality for one thing. an egg can't hatch itself, it needs a mother. age is part of creation just because some may not understand it or the reasons why does it mean that it did not take place. remember not everything goes according to human comprhension.

this brings to mind another fatal flaw of evolution? which i shall post in the other thread.

Enigma

Here is an interesting article that really challenges the idea that light would have been made en route

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5639

Yes, science is not the final authority, but God's creation is a testament to Him (Psalm 19). By studying it we are able to glimpse the handiwork of God. Just as studying a work of art gives up tremendous inforamtion about the artist, studying the creation gives us glimpses into His power, might, creativity, love, mystery....

Lots of unfortunate history that has created a lot of ill will towards science. But so many scientists in the past and now work for God's glory. The scientist who led the Human Genome project recently became a Christian because God changed his heart and opened his eyes to the results of his research.

Check out these websites on the main God and science page...the first tackles the evidence for old earth. Their are many more pieces of evidence other than speed of light. Check it out. The second deals with the evidence for humans.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... iverse.php
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld001.php
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/progressive.php

Here is an interesting article that really challenges the idea that light would have been made en route

that article is a good example of where even educated men go wrong. i won't deconstruct the article right now as there is no need-- hopefully.

suffice it to say he has nothing to prove his conclusions are true. it is a 'take my word for it' group of statements. then He calls God a liar. COMPARE:

1.

how do you know the stars are really there? You don't see the light of anything that existed. You're seeing an image created in transit of an event-- watch this-- that never took place

2.

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day

whom are you going to believe? God or science?

he is also saying that God is not capable of creating things as He describes. i talked about the ramifications that comes with taking science over God, herei one example:

the Bible tells us that sinners will go to the lake of fire/hell when the final judgment comes; YET science cannot find hell or the lake of fire nor can it prove it exists. did God lie again?

if you say He lied at creation what proof do you have He did not lie at the end? with no scientific proof of the lake of fire then sinners do not have to change their lifestyles, do not need salvation and do not need to accept Christ as their Savior for there is no proof that salvation is needed. Christ's work is in vain.

Titus, i believe, tells us that God does not lie and he can't for then He would destroy the message and the Hope He gave us in the Bible and in the saving work of Christ.

you who take science over God are calling God a liar and need to repent and take science down off its pedestal. the call to repent won't always be here.

look at what you are saying then compare it to the whole picture, God does not compromise.

the point is God doesn't go according to science and christians need to let this notion that He does, go.

I confess, I also struggle with certain notions in attempting to reconcile Biblical and scientific thought. Nevertheless, there are two things that disturb me greatly in these debates:

• 1. In an age when Christianity in general, is facing unprecedented attacks from atheists, agnostics and other world views, there is a disturbing trend for Christians to fight Christians with great struggle and division. Why? Because there is the great need to reconcile the Bible with post-modern and scientific disciplines.
  
  2. There is a very disturbuing trend to claim that the unchanging, ever-faithful, Word of Truth was maybe not so true according to the traditional interpretation and now there is a great attempt to revise the interpretation. Why? Well in many places, you have science saying one thing and the Bible seeming to say another and how to resolve this problem if the Word of God true. Well obviously something must change.

Rom 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

Forum Monk wrote:1. In an age when Christianity in general, is facing unprecedented attacks from atheists, agnostics and other world views, there is a disturbing trend for Christians to fight Christians with great struggle and division.

Agreed... And when these unbelievers see our divisions they simply love it...

Forum Monk wrote:Why? Because there is the great need to reconcile the Bible with post-modern and scientific disciplines.

Well that is why we have our divisions. Because the scientific disciplines actually SUPPORT the Bible... And that is what Christians should do.. What we should fight against is Darwinian Evolution. It is a cancer that needs to be confronted....

Forum Monk wrote:2. There is a very disturbuing trend to claim that the unchanging, ever-faithful, Word of Truth was maybe not so true according to the traditional interpretation and now there is a great attempt to revise the interpretation. Why? Well in many places, you have science saying one thing and the Bible seeming to say another and how to resolve this problem if the Word of God true. Well obviously something must change.

I don't see that science and the Bible are in conflict when it comes to creation.. It is only perhaps our understanding of the Bible that needs to be in check when it comes to creation. I don't see why we should get into hissy fits as to how God created things.. I think we can all agree that He did create all things... As far as Jesus, abortion and the Trinity, we should NEVER budge on that...

Forum Monk wrote:Rom 3:4
Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge."

Man may lie, but true science supports the Bible because God is the author of true science...

And when these unbelievers see our divisions they simply love it...

what can you say, Jesus said in Mat. 10:34 that He came not to bring peace but a sword. there will be division among christians.

What we should fight against is Darwinian Evolution.

no, our battle is not against flesh and blood, read eph. 6:12. we do not care which theory they have, we care that they are set free from the evil one.

Because the scientific disciplines actually SUPPORT the Bible

science is not going to win the day --Zech. 4:6 tells you how it can be done.

It is only perhaps our understanding of the Bible that needs to be in check when it comes to creation.

perhaps you are letting your desires open yourself up to deceivement but if you follow--'ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free' then maybe you will have a chance but only if you do it right and let go of those things which hinder your spiritual growth.

I don't see why we should get into hissy fits as to how God created things.. I think we can all agree that He did create all things

why? because those that do not stand by the way God did it, are the ones in error and need correcting--read 2 timothy 3:16-17.

Man may lie, but true science supports the Bible because God is the author of true science...

a couple questions: 1. where does scripture teach this?
2. if you do not know what God's perfection is, how would you know what true science is?
3. How can you ascertain the truth by following secular thinking, methodology, secular criteria,, and so on?

jesus teaches in john 12:32-34 that when he is lifted up, HE will draw all men to Him. He does not teach that we lift up science, history or other fields to bring men to Him.

science has but a few answers, as does archaeology, history, physics, astronomy and so on, they are mere pebbles compared to lifting up Jesus.

the problem here is that christians are looking to science to solve their problems when they should be looking to God. too many people put God aside to make their faith more attractive to the non-believers but tha is wrong. I.D. advocates and the theory itself are one of them. they hide God to gain entrance to where only God can bring them.

the time to stop following the secular world is now. Jesus said in 5:14 'ye are the light of the world...' (actually read mt. 5:13-16)
1. how can you be the light if you follow the secular path?
2. do the same things as the secularists? (#3 above)
3. and do not do what God has said?
4.how will they ever see that they are wrong and that God is better and Lord over all?

it is time to get back to God.

Wow, i guess i should have seen this coming.

there is a disturbing trend for Christians to fight Christians with great struggle and division

I don't see it this way. I think we all have our different individual beliefs (not going to say who is right). That seems to me to be beneficial. If there were only one or two denominations, who's to say we would be able to save more people? I think we all have different beliefs and styles and standings, etc. because different people will require a different approach to be saved.

I've said in another forum that if the bible and science hadn't coincided, i might not have been a christian. NOw, i do not lean so heavily on science, but science did open the door. Others, like my wife, don't need science at all. They could care less. They KNOW God's there and that's good enough. Only if we could all be like that.

But we can't!!!!! I need reason. I have a new favorite verse:

1 Cor 14:15: "...I will pray with my spirit, but i will also pray with my mind; i will sing with my spirit, but i will also sing with my mind."

To me, powerful powerful stuff. Powerful...

Anyway...I agree that the age of the earth is trivial, only the creator of the earth matters. But i still maintain that things like ID can be a tool when used properly to save souls (ie, mine).

Enigma7457 wrote:I don't see it this way. I think we all have our different individual beliefs (not going to say who is right). That seems to me to be beneficial. If there were only one or two denominations, who's to say we would be able to save more people? I think we all have different beliefs and styles and standings, etc. because different people will require a different approach to be saved.

I was hoping people on this board would see my statement in the larger context. I am not referring to this board in particular but what I see taking place across the internet. These same differing points of view have evolved into website against website. Groups of people dedicated to undoing the beliefs system of others and all sides claiming to be Christian. In a way it is like militant denominationism. I don't mean to narrow my statement to a particular board. Really I am willing to say, "I believe such and such but not everyone believes the same as I about this." We can disagree on these nonessential beliefs as long as we remain united in the Christian essentials of Christ first and love for one another.

I was hoping people on this board would see my statement in the larger context. I am not referring to this board in particular but what I see taking place across the internet. These same differing points of view have evolved into website against website. Groups of people dedicated to undoing the beliefs system of others and all sides claiming to be Christian. In a way it is like militant denominationism. I don't mean to narrow my statement to a particular board. Really I am willing to say, "I believe such and such but not everyone believes the same as I about this." We can disagree on these nonessential beliefs as long as we remain united in the Christian essentials of Christ first and love for one another.

Sorry i read it out of context. In this instance, i do whole-heartedly agree with you. If ever our individual beliefs cause us to attack other Christians in a 'militant' way, then that is cause for alarm. I have not been a web-user for very long, and as such have not seen this 'militant denominationism'. Did not look at it that way.

Thanks for clearing it up.

a VERY wise man once told me that we should never be dogmatic when the scripture isn't.

Arch is OEC, a gap theory supporter, MANY YEC would regard him as straying from the scripture and saying that he is looking for alternative beliefs from the bible. Believe me I know. Many YEC look at OEC as heretics.

Many of us are progessive creationists. We believe that the Hebrew words like day and kind have meanings other than the commonly assumed meanings. Yet we are called to repent by both YEC and other OEC's alike.

WE need to be cautious about accusing one another of calling God a liar.

Currently scientific evidence points to an old universe. Currently we can examine scripture and see that it can mean and old universe as well. UNfortunately, most of the division comes from those that fear and misunderstand both science and the bible, feeling that we compromise.

And as long as we are clearly supporitng in scripture that God controlled, planned, imposed His will, created, called forth, planned an orderly, structured universe, then we should be willing to discuss things.

A good example of the difficulty in making conclusions about meanings is found on this page of G & S
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/biblevol.php

Here Rich examines the hebrew words used in the creation account.

archaeology wrote: suffice it to say he has nothing to prove his conclusions are true. it is a 'take my word for it' group of statements. then He calls God a liar. COMPARE:

HE doesn't call God a liar....He says that those who claim that light was created in transit are calling God a liar. He is saying that those who claim that we are simply seeing images established by God are saying we aren't seeing the real thing.


Those that believe light was created in transit must assume that all we are seeing are images by God not the actual light from these stars and supernovas.

Enigma7457 wrote:Wow, i guess i should have seen this coming.

there is a disturbing trend for Christians to fight Christians with great struggle and division

I don't see it this way. I think we all have our different individual beliefs (not going to say who is right). That seems to me to be beneficial. If there were only one or two denominations, who's to say we would be able to save more people? I think we all have different beliefs and styles and standings, etc. because different people will require a different approach to be saved.

I've said in another forum that if the bible and science hadn't coincided, i might not have been a christian. NOw, i do not lean so heavily on science, but science did open the door. Others, like my wife, don't need science at all. They could care less. They KNOW God's there and that's good enough. Only if we could all be like that.

But we can't!!!!! I need reason. I have a new favorite verse:

1 Cor 14:15: "...I will pray with my spirit, but i will also pray with my mind; i will sing with my spirit, but i will also sing with my mind."

To me, powerful powerful stuff. Powerful...

Anyway...I agree that the age of the earth is trivial, only the creator of the earth matters. But i still maintain that things like ID can be a tool when used properly to save souls (ie, mine).

Enigma,

I know I am biased, but science isn't bad!! God placed Adam and Eve in the garden and established a mandate for them to be stewards. ADam named the animals...do we really think he did think flippantly? or would he have, with God, established an understanding of these animals....To be good stewards we must observe ! Unfortunatley our realtionsip between ourselves and the earth has been corrupted but that doesn't change our mandate!

God isn't disturbed but our questions! As long as we are focused on Him first! It is His creation!



"The heavens declare the glory of God"