Evidence for God from Science

Hello, I found this site not long ago:

http://yadayahweh.com/Yada_Yahweh_Genesis.YHWH

And it is very interesting. The the author presents a new way of looking at Genesis. He says that while Genesis is not scientific ( like a chemistry book), it is not allegorical or just poetic ( it presents scientific truth). From what I said until now I could be describing Reasons to Believe or EGS Genesis interpretation.

But in fact, the author of Yada Yahweh presents a very different way of looking at Genesis. It is very long to read but it is worth the time. The link I wrote above is the one to the introductory chapter of Yada Yahweh, but the interesting part is at chapters 1 and 2 (Hayah and 'Owr).

The most interesting par in my opinion is this one, from chapter 2 'Owr:

"While the various scientific methods for estimating of the age of our universe provide differing conclusions, they all fall within the same general magnitude. So while we cannot be dogmatic or assert that the scientific claims are precise, based upon our ability to measure, looking back in time from the vantage point of earth, the universe can be reasonably assumed to be 15 billion years old plus or minus a billion years or so.

The creative days of Genesis, however, look forward, not back. Yahuweh's testimony was composed as an eyewitness, from the perspective of the Creator at creation, not from the created on earth. The simple truth is that no matter how arrogant and self-reliant mankind chooses to be, our planet didn't even exist when the universe was created, so our perspective and clock were not used.

With that in mind, let's compare our clock to His. To do that we must multiply the approximately 15,000,000,000 year age of the cosmos by 365.25 days per year so that both clocks conform to the same unit of measure. 15,000,000,000 years x 365.25 day/year = 5,478,750,000,000 days (plus or minus 10%, or 1.5 billion years).

Then to calibrate this 5.5 trillion day period to creation's clock, respecting the relativistic nature of time, we must divide earth time in days since creation by the amount time was slowed at creation. Earlier, we determined this number by averaging the coefficients derived from the four methods from which it can be deduced. Big Bang time ran 0.9 x 1012 (900,000,000,000) times slower than earth time does now.

So here is the math: 5,478,750,000,000 days / 900,000,000,000 = 6 days. That means that from the vantage point of a witness to creation, existing at the point of inception, the whole process from start to finish took a length of time that equates to six earth days. "And thus the heavens and earth were finished...and on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made..." (Genesis 2:1-2) What a coincidence. Yahuweh's timeline, His accounting, God's 3,200-year-old written testimony, corresponds precisely with the evidence. If that doesn't get your attention and cause you to think that His Scriptures might be inspired, nothing will."

"But we have only scratched the surface. With every layer and detail He adds, God proves that He knew how the universe was created, when it was created, the role light played, and how and when life came to exist. And there is but one rational, informed reason for this: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

As I said it is a very long read but PLEASE ( notice the capital letters) post your opinion, after all, what if the author interpretation is better?
[/url]

Interesting....

quite possibile!

From our perspective, then, we are reading billions but from God's relative perspective, days...

Always thought provoking

There's a word for that, and that word is "spiffy".

Before rushing to embrace these ideas, how about a little research on the author (which by the way appears to be hidden but can be discovered) and look at his other writings. Check his stand on catholism and religion in general, and check his personal credentials.

Forum Monk wrote:Before rushing to embrace these ideas, how about a little research on the author (which by the way appears to be hidden but can be discovered) and look at his other writings. Check his stand on catholism and religion in general, and check his personal credentials.

His name is Craig Winn. He is anti-religion, but that doesnt matter, does it?
He wrote, along with his friends, the book called Prophet of Doom. When I was deciding between Christianity and Islam, Prophet of Doom was ESSENTIAL to make me come to Christianity. He pretty much debunked Islam. He defends his anti-religious in Yada Yahweh I think its on the "God Damn Religion" part. I think that sometimes he is aggressive, but he makes his point clear.

Thats not why I started this thread. I started it because there are people with superior knowledge in science in this forum and people here got different, yet interesting opinions. He makes bold claims, but what if they are true (or a part of them at least) ?

EDIT: I found this "Who is Craig Winn" article on his site

http://prophetofdoom.net/Who_is_Craig_Winn.Islam

Again, could we please focus on the messege not on the messenger? I agree that checking his background is useful, but lets not turn away from the main discussion

Forum Monk wrote:Before rushing to embrace these ideas, how about a little research on the author (which by the way appears to be hidden but can be discovered) and look at his other writings. Check his stand on catholism and religion in general, and check his personal credentials.

Yeah, I skimmed through a few sections of his "Yada Yahweh" book, and he does make some pretty far-out claims, but his idea about creation seems pretty logical.

Swamper wrote:

Forum Monk wrote:Before rushing to embrace these ideas, how about a little research on the author (which by the way appears to be hidden but can be discovered) and look at his other writings. Check his stand on catholism and religion in general, and check his personal credentials.

Yeah, I skimmed through a few sections of his "Yada Yahweh" book, and he does make some pretty far-out claims, but his idea about creation seems pretty logical.

I agree with you that he makes very bold claims, but he does so with logic. Thats the reason I wanted to bring this to you. I disagree with him in some parts (like when he claims that Yahuweh used scientific jargon), but most of what he said is logical, plus, he has got scholar material to back his claims.

However I would really appreciate if the people on this forum with good scientific knowledge participated in this discussion. Maybe we can learn something new

For they who would like to look deeper into these ideas, I suggest going to the horse's mouth. The scientific ideas presented are essentially copied from the work of Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Dr. Schroeder has authored several books including "The Science of God". In my opinion, it is better to look at the original work and avoid the gibberish in Mr. Winn's tome.

Forum Monk wrote:For they who would like to look deeper into these ideas, I suggest going to the horse's mouth. The scientific ideas presented are essentially copied from the work of Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Dr. Schroeder has authored several books including "The Science of God". In my opinion, it is better to look at the original work and avoid the gibberish in Mr. Winn's tome.

Thanks, I will look for this book. But are Winn's ideas wrong? Are there scientific mistakes on it? Or do you think his interpretation is wrong?

And by the way, whats are your views on Genesis?

Looking for the Truth wrote:Thanks, I will look for this book. But are Winn's ideas wrong? Are there scientific mistakes on it? Or do you think his interpretation is wrong?

Please understand, this is only my opinion and you are free to accept it or reject it. I think if you are truly seeking the truth it is better to 1. Pray for understanding and read the Bible 2. Find and attend a good church which teaches from the bible 3. Surround yourself with believers of like mind and discuss, pray, encourage, and exhort one another.

As to Mr. Winn's writings, I find it is not easy to even ascertain what his point of view really is. His writing is often convoluted and confusing and requires very careful reading. He liberally consults multiple interpretations and weaves them together, picking and choosing those which he deems best but according to which standard?

I am troubled by his staunch and unabashed anti-religious point of view and his repeatedly equating Islam, Catholicism and Communism.

According to his webmaster, their philosophy removes the Christian assurance of salvation which is contrary to most Orthodox Christianity:

"Now, it's likely that you are thinking about where the line is drawn between living with Him forever and ceasing to exist. Of course, there is no way for us to know, and it is not our place to consider ourselves able to make these calls with any certainty. However, He gives us many indications that most of mankind, having made a deliberate choice or from being deceived, will never know Him. Meaning, this third alternative, oblivion, is very likely the eventuality for most souls."

As far as scientific claims which he makes, I question the reasoning and science behind these statements taken directly from the website you linked:

"However, to relate to us and to enter our more finite realm, Yahweh can and does convert some of His light energy into matter. As a matter of fact, modern science has come to recognize that "all matter is just a mass of stable light."

I have know idea what this so-called 'stable light' is.

"Many aspects of our universe, especially at the sub-atomic and galactic levels, demonstrate cognitive awareness. Examples might be the half-lives of radioactive decay, whereby individual particles demonstrate coordinated behavior, and the ability of living cells and inorganic light to consciously communicate with and influence the behavior of others."

This is giving human qualities to particles and galaxies.

"And even if we could travel at the speed of light - a physical impossibility - we could never get beyond our cosmic neighborhood, because the most distant stars are moving away from us, due to the stretching of space, much faster than the speed we could travel. And worse, they are accelerating."

This is a contradiction. It is impossible to travel the speed of light, but if we could, stars would be traveling faster. This is ludicrous.

"The pace of time at a location with greater mass, energy, or velocity is slower than at a place with diminished mass, energy, or velocity. We can confirm this shift by measuring the two parts per million a light wave is stretched emanating in the presence of the greater mass of the sun relative to a light wave generated on earth. The sun's clock runs 2.12/1,000,000 slower than earth's, losing 67 seconds a year relative to a terrestrial timepiece."

I leave it up to anyone to figure out what the sun's clock is, and how it is measured.

As I said. These are my opinions. Draw your own conclusions and if you feel there is another credible point of view, let's hear it.

And by the way, whats are your views on Genesis?

Start here: http://www.godandscience.org/discussion ... 2b69407956

I gotta agree with the Monk on this one. To be honest, i only skimmed the web page (way too long), but most of his claims seem to come from his own opinion rather than from any kind of facts.

Forum Monk wrote:For they who would like to look deeper into these ideas, I suggest going to the horse's mouth. The scientific ideas presented are essentially copied from the work of Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Dr. Schroeder has authored several books including "The Science of God". In my opinion, it is better to look at the original work and avoid the gibberish in Mr. Winn's tome.

Yeah, the rest of the website a *bit* out there, I was referring to the idea itself, I have also read some of Dr. Schroeder's books, but not in a awhile!!! A bit rusty there!!

Forum Monk wrote:

Looking for the Truth wrote:Thanks, I will look for this book. But are Winn's ideas wrong? Are there scientific mistakes on it? Or do you think his interpretation is wrong?

Please understand, this is only my opinion and you are free to accept it or reject it. I think if you are truly seeking the truth it is better to 1. Pray for understanding and read the Bible 2. Find and attend a good church which teaches from the bible 3. Surround yourself with believers of like mind and discuss, pray, encourage, and exhort one another.

As to Mr. Winn's writings, I find it is not easy to even ascertain what his point of view really is. His writing is often convoluted and confusing and requires very careful reading. He liberally consults multiple interpretations and weaves them together, picking and choosing those which he deems lbest but according to which standard?

I am troubled by his staunch and unabashed anti-religious point of view and his repeatedly equating Islam, Catholicism and Communism.

According to his webmaster, their philosophy removes the Christian assurance of salvation which is contrary to most Orthodox Christianity:

"Now, it's likely that you are thinking about where the line is drawn between living with Him forever and ceasing to exist. Of course, there is no way for us to know, and it is not our place to consider ourselves able to make these calls with any certainty. However, He gives us many indications that most of mankind, having made a deliberate choice or from being deceived, will never know Him. Meaning, this third alternative, oblivion, is very likely the eventuality for most souls."

As far as scientific claims which he makes, I question the reasoning and science behind these statements taken directly from the website you linked:

"However, to relate to us and to enter our more finite realm, Yahweh can and does convert some of His light energy into matter. As a matter of fact, modern science has come to recognize that "all matter is just a mass of stable light."

I have know idea what this so-called 'stable light' is.

"Many aspects of our universe, especially at the sub-atomic and galactic levels, demonstrate cognitive awareness. Examples might be the half-lives of radioactive decay, whereby individual particles demonstrate coordinated behavior, and the ability of living cells and inorganic light to consciously communicate with and influence the behavior of others."

This is giving human qualities to particles and galaxies.

"And even if we could travel at the speed of light - a physical impossibility - we could never get beyond our cosmic neighborhood, because the most distant stars are moving away from us, due to the stretching of space, much faster than the speed we could travel. And worse, they are accelerating."

This is a contradiction. It is impossible to travel the speed of light, but if we could, stars would be traveling faster. This is ludicrous.

"The pace of time at a location with greater mass, energy, or velocity is slower than at a place with diminished mass, energy, or velocity. We can confirm this shift by measuring the two parts per million a light wave is stretched emanating in the presence of the greater mass of the sun relative to a light wave generated on earth. The sun's clock runs 2.12/1,000,000 slower than earth's, losing 67 seconds a year relative to a terrestrial timepiece."

I leave it up to anyone to figure out what the sun's clock is, and how it is measured.

As I said. These are my opinions. Draw your own conclusions and if you feel there is another credible point of view, let's hear it.

And by the way, whats are your views on Genesis?

Start here: http://www.godandscience.org/discussion ... 2b69407956

Sorry, Im a bit late in my answer. Before I continue I would like to say something: I did NOT embrace Winn's ideas. I cant even get past the first 3 chapters! I red other parts of the book, but thats it. I started this thread to share this new way of viewing Genesis with people I consider better than me in when it comes to Biblical knowledge and science. OK so its time to answer Monk:

Thank you for your tips Monk but 1- I dont think reading the Bible will help because my dillema is to know if I take the Bible (especially Genesis) in a poetic way or in a more literal way(like RTB's interpretation), eitherway I will ask God to enlighten me. 2 I doubt anyone in the church can help me, unless the preacher is a Hebrew speaking scientist. 3 Just like 2.

I agree with you that Yada Yahweh is not very well written, but surprisingly his other books are easier to understand. Check out Prophet of Doom. Its easy to read that book. Personally I dont feel troubled when he "equates Islam, Catholicism and Communism". His point is that every religion turns man away from God. I have to agree with him, God wants relationship not religion. In fact I belive that religion is anti-Biblical. A religion is a set of rituals that make man get closer to God(s). Christians dont need that, because God came to us in flesh.

Now on his philosophy, when he said:

"Now, it's likely that you are thinking about where the line is drawn between living with Him forever and ceasing to exist. Of course, there is no way for us to know, and it is not our place to consider ourselves able to make these calls with any certainty. However, He gives us many indications that most of mankind, having made a deliberate choice or from being deceived, will never know Him. Meaning, this third alternative, oblivion, is very likely the eventuality for most souls."

I think he was saying that he and his team ("us") cant say who will be saved and who will not. After all, you have to accept the Messiah with your heart, and not only with your mind. You are the one that need to know if you accepted the Messiah or not. I could write more on that if you wanted.

I have searched on the web for "stable light" and I didnt find what he said ( (or if I did, I couldnt understand a thing because it was all written in "Physics language" ) .

When he gave human qualities to stars I belive he meant that stars are designed in a way that they can "communicate" with each other. I have to admit this one was quite strange, but if he tried what I think he tried to say, then I can understand it. Yada Yahweh language isnt clear enough for a book that claims what it claims.

I cant write about the rest because my knowledge of science does not permit it. Please understand, I'm not a fan of Craig. I'm just discussing a new way of looking at Genesis. I think that many verses in Genesis are allegorical, even though they portray some truth. Adam and Eve eating the
apple is one exemple.
Besides what do you have to say about the quote I posted on the first post?
Do you think that Adam and Eve were the first humans or they just portray
God creating humankind?

Looking for the Truth wrote:I cant write about the rest because my knowledge of science does not permit it. Please understand, I'm not a fan of Craig. I'm just discussing a new way of looking at Genesis. I think that many verses in Genesis are allegorical, even though they portray some truth. Adam and Eve eating the
apple is one exemple.
Besides what do you have to say about the quote I posted on the first post?
Do you think that Adam and Eve were the first humans or they just portray
God creating humankind?

I like your name Looking for the Truth but I hope you don't mind if I simply call you LT. I think it is good if you ask God to enlighten you about which way to take the Bible as you will see several points of view about that on these pages.

I have many things I can say about the first quotation you made in the first post. It is basically the exact words of the Dr. Schroeder I referenced previously. It supposes, of course, the cosmology of the Big Bang is correct and depends on the principle that as time-space has stretched, the univeral 'clock' has slowed (or speeded up depending on your frame of reference). Big bang and relativity are complicated but within the realm of understandability by the layman.

Nevertheless, many, myself included, hold that truth does not begin with the Big Bang because it does not answer the fundemental question, where did the singularity which exploded into the universe orginate? What was its beginning? We know that God, who is Truth, is eternal and had no beginning. It is an amazing thing that the eternal God who spoke and all things came into existance from nothing, desires to have a personal relationship with us. In my opinion, LT, there are no certainties in science, only probabilities based on our limited view of reality. I suggest you find Truth first if you haven't all ready, then study science.

I believe that Adam and Eve were literal and real human beings, created by God. They are not allegorical. God's marvelous plan of redemption began with that first man, though He had planned it long before. We are discussing these things now in the link I provided previously.

Forum Monk wrote:

Looking for the Truth wrote:I cant write about the rest because my knowledge of science does not permit it. Please understand, I'm not a fan of Craig. I'm just discussing a new way of looking at Genesis. I think that many verses in Genesis are allegorical, even though they portray some truth. Adam and Eve eating the
apple is one exemple.
Besides what do you have to say about the quote I posted on the first post?
Do you think that Adam and Eve were the first humans or they just portray
God creating humankind?

I like your name Looking for the Truth but I hope you don't mind if I simply call you LT. I think it is good if you ask God to enlighten you about which way to take the Bible as you will see several points of view about that on these pages.

I have many things I can say about the first quotation you made in the first post. It is basically the exact words of the Dr. Schroeder I referenced previously. It supposes, of course, the cosmology of the Big Bang is correct and depends on the principle that as time-space has stretched, the univeral 'clock' has slowed (or speeded up depending on your frame of reference). Big bang and relativity are complicated but within the realm of understandability by the layman.

Nevertheless, many, myself included, hold that truth does not begin with the Big Bang because it does not answer the fundemental question, where did the singularity which exploded into the universe orginate? What was its beginning? We know that God, who is Truth, is eternal and had no beginning. It is an amazing thing that the eternal God who spoke and all things came into existance from nothing, desires to have a personal relationship with us. In my opinion, LT, there are no certainties in science, only probabilities based on our limited view of reality. I suggest you find Truth first if you haven't all ready, then study science.

I believe that Adam and Eve were literal and real human beings, created by God. They are not allegorical. God's marvelous plan of redemption began with that first man, though He had planned it long before. We are discussing these things now in the link I provided previously.

Thank you for your response Monk. There is no problem in calling me LT I picked this name when I was deciding between Christianity or Islam. I found Mr Winn's website called Prophet of Doom. He pretty much debunked Islam, therefore I was quite impressed. I started reading his book Yada Yahweh, and Im still reading it, but perhaps I should skip the science part and go to the rest of the book, that appears to be more comprehensible ( I hope I got that word right, me not be native speaker of English). I feel realy bad, because I hold God's Scriptures in my hand and I dont know how to read it. I want to learn more about God, because Yahuweh is amazing. I will join your discussion soon, expose my ideas and my thoughts and questions. Thank you for your time Monk!