Evidence for God from Science

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


I have heard the claims that the flood would be impossible, because so much water falling down, under the laws of physics would cause enough heat to end life on earth.

One must also conclude, that the same laws make this verse impossible, in creation week. I agree. Notice that life was created, and put on earth DAYS later, so this massive planetary movement of water and land allowed life days later.

Either the present laws were not in effect, or the bible is a crock. I can understand the nominal believers, that claim it was not really days but long ages. This bit, they can reconcile. What about bible believers, in the more literal sense? How can you claim both that the bible is true, and that the present laws were in effect??

I fail to see how believing that the creation days were not literal days makes one any less of a Bible believer...

It makes the bible a fairy tale, with no reality and umph.

No, not really.

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

Read that first

Swamper wrote:No, not really.

Well, yes, really. Jesus referred to the flood, for example, if we explain away all these things as unreal, we may as well toss out the bible. Really.

Seraph wrote:http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Read that first

From that link

'' 1. "This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20)
2. Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15)
3. "For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4)
4. "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)

The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years."
The verses all made it clear it was a day. The one that covered more than a day, clearly had morningS, and eveningS, and dayS. You must be kidding.
Now, according to your take on things, Noah must have been millions of years old. It rained for forty days!
Let's face it, that whole line of 'defense' was cooked up, to try to agree with science long ago. It makes little actual sense, and leaves the bible as a silly book of untrue fables.

The word "yom" often is meant to mean a 24-hour day, but it also often isn't. In the case of Noah it was referring to 24 hour periods, in the creation account it wasn't.

I fail to see the problem...

Let's face it, that whole line of 'defense' was cooked up, to try to agree with science long ago. It makes little actual sense, and leaves the bible as a silly book of untrue fables.

And you know this because...?

dad wrote:Either the present laws were not in effect, or the bible is a crock. I can understand the nominal believers, that claim it was not really days but long ages. This bit, they can reconcile. What about bible believers, in the more literal sense? How can you claim both that the bible is true, and that the present laws were in effect??

This is what the atheists are trying promote. That science and the Bible don't mix... So what do some Christians do?? They say that the science we know today is completely false. Even though anyone with just a tad of a scientific knowledge would know that this isn't true.

So where does the problem stem from? How dare someone question the teachings of the Bible? It's a literal six days... Noah's flood covered the entire earth... etc. The problem is with all this that most people refuse to understand that the Bible is NOT a western book. It's a middle eastern book written in Greek and Hebrew. So of course things are going to "tweaked" a bit in the translation. In fact, anyone with a little insight shouldn't be surprised by this.. It's not such a huge problem as others make it to be. The problem that happens is that the literalists "have to" take every single word at face value. Who cares about oreintalisms or figures of speech that stem from these middle eastern cultures. Which begs the question... Who is making the Bible a crock?

well said

Seraph wrote:The word "yom" often is meant to mean a 24-hour day, but it also often isn't. In the case of Noah it was referring to 24 hour periods, in the creation account it wasn't.

I fail to see the problem...

The problem is context. The creation is further broken down to morning and evening. It is also later referred to as a day of rest, like God took, after 6 days work. Also, the plants were made before the sun. ho long do you claim plants can last with no sun, and fruit on trees, etc?? Remember, Adam ate that fruit, he was never millions of years old!!! Think about it.

And you know this because...?

Because it only came along after science became popular.

Gman wrote: This is what the atheists are trying promote. That science and the Bible don't mix... So what do some Christians do?? They say that the science we know today is completely false. Even though anyone with just a tad of a scientific knowledge would know that this isn't true.

Not me, it is pretty well bang on within it's physical only present state limitations.

So where does the problem stem from? How dare someone question the teachings of the Bible? It's a literal six days... Noah's flood covered the entire earth... etc. The problem is with all this that most people refuse to understand that the Bible is NOT a western book. It's a middle eastern book written in Greek and Hebrew. So of course things are going to "tweaked" a bit in the translation.

There are enough cross checks, to rule that out.

In fact, anyone with a little insight shouldn't be surprised by this.. It's not such a huge problem as others make it to be. The problem that happens is that the literalists "have to" take every single word at face value. Who cares about oreintalisms or figures of speech that stem from these middle eastern cultures. Which begs the question... Who is making the Bible a crock?

Those that do not believe the things in it, but contort, twist, and try to explain it all away. Why do you have a problem with creation in the creation week, precisely??

dad wrote:Not me, it is pretty well bang on within it's physical only present state limitations.

You mean YEC right? No.. There is nothing scientific in YEC. It's an embarrassment to science and those supporting it, I believe, are in danger of judgment from God.

There are enough cross checks, to rule that out.

Really? Have you ever studied foreign languages before? It is impossible to hold the simplest conversation, or to write a few sentences without, it may be unconsciously, making use of figures of speech (in any language past or present). They are totally embedded in the Bible. Some figures are common to many languages, others are peculiar to some one language. There are figures used in the English language, which have nothing that answers to them in Hebrew or Greek and there are Oriental figures which have no counterpart in English. If there are so many cross checks to rule this out, then why are we having this conversation? It should be clear.

Those that do not believe the things in it, but contort, twist, and try to explain it all away. Why do you have a problem with creation in the creation week, precisely??

I don't have a problem with creation in creation week. It's fine the way it is. I only have a problem with the literalists that say that it was a literal 7 day creation. Scripture never supported this idea, and the science, well the science speaks for itself.

Perhaps this word study of the hebrew day "yom" or "day" will clear this up.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Gman wrote:
You mean YEC right? No.. There is nothing scientific in YEC. It's an embarrassment to science and those supporting it, I believe, are in danger of judgment from God.

Yec is every bit as much science as old ageism. Not that that is all that much anyhow. You see, the bible deals with the spiritual as well as the physical. The temporary state universe knowledge we call science will pass away as will the heavens and earth we know, as is. For you to insinuate that God would frown on people that believe the bible for what is says, by and large, rather than leaning to the cunning fables of man, misapplied to the past, they know squat about, is impish.

There are enough cross checks, to rule that out.

Really? Have you ever studied foreign languages before?

Language has little to do with it. It is only one part of the equation. The spiritual parts of the equation are paramount in importance. Study that.

It is impossible to hold the simplest conversation, or to write a few sentences without, it may be unconsciously, making use of figures of speech (in any language past or present). They are totally embedded in the Bible. Some figures are common to many languages, others are peculiar to some one language. There are figures used in the English language, which have nothing that answers to them in Hebrew or Greek and there are Oriental figures which have no counterpart in English. If there are so many cross checks to rule this out, then why are we having this conversation? It should be clear.

The cross checks I meant are things like morning, and evening, and plants made days before the sun, and the usual context of day, as in Gen 3:8, that rule out your claims. Blow them away.

I don't have a problem with creation in creation week. It's fine the way it is. I only have a problem with the literalists that say that it was a literal 7 day creation. Scripture never supported this idea, and the science, well the science speaks for itself.

Scripture supports a six day creation best. It can be contorted to so called support the compromise theories as well, but as mentioned, not very well.

Perhaps this word study of the hebrew day "yom" or "day" will clear this up.

http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

That doesn't clear anything up the way you would like it to. It points out the obvious, the word could be used in other ways. So??? The thing that is important here, is how WAS it used in early Genesis?

Science you say speaks for itself. It speaks for the present. It speaks for the physical only. Shouldn't you worry about what speaks for God, and the spiritual as well? Or do you care??

Keeping an open mind. i found this very interesting, maybe you will to. I also purchased the DVD on "Has Science Discovered God" .....http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

Tiamo