Evidence for God from Science

I probably should not start my first post by creating a thread on a controversial topic. I hope nobody minds a newbie making this his first post.

When I visited godandscience.org for the first time, I was relieved to find a scientific explanation for what happens in the Bible. I did not quite believe in the literal translation of the Bible for quite a few reasons. For one, it did not explain where dinosaurs, which are believed to live millions of years old, fit into a 6000-year period. Additionally, the earth was also believed to have been formed billions of years ago. That is why I embraced many of the viewpoints that Christian evolutionist share about the Bible and how it falls in the evolutionary process.

Today however, I share the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) viewpoint. I have to admit that I allowed myself to be indoctrinated into this viewpoint. I believe Jesus gave authority to all of scripture as the final word and as a result, one should view the world through the Bible and not the Bible through the world. In other words, before (as an evolutionist) I was trying to fit the Bible through the theories being touted today in Science instead of trying to use the facts in science to reinforce scripture. I believe, the YEC model allows me to look at scripture first and then let the peaces fall as they may. I have a feeling of liberation when I can go to the literal interpretation of the Bible and use the facts in science to support the YEC model.

When I say “literal”, however, the meaning of literal in relation to the Bible needs to be cleared up. I feel the literal translation is the meaning assigned when looking at the passage in relation to its context (either in the passage or the Bible as a whole). This can tell us if the passage is metaphorically speaking or literally speaking. In relation to scripture, another definition to literal might be what ones understanding of Genesis is with out having any preconceived notions of science or any other outside information. Most people would conclude that the Bible is talking about six literal days of creation at first glance (and rightfully so).

After recently studying the theory proposed by YEC, I have become convinced that the facts that are put forth today support this model. It is believed amongst YEC that there is not a single fact that supports evolution. So far, I have not seen any evidence from evolutionist that cannot be refuted by the YEC model and in many cases actually work against the evolution theory. Furthermore, it would appear that the YEC model fits perfectly with what we see through out the world today, while the evolutionary model struggles to fit the facts today into its model(although if its science, it should be the other way around).

Therefore, with that said, I would like to put my limited knowledge of the YEC model to the test in an open discussion. Feel free to poke holes in the YEC model and to backup your theories on why evolution is true.

NOTE: I am no expert on any of the above. However, as a student of the Bible, I am fascinated by this aspect of creation and wish to talk openly about it. Thanks.

The first question I would propose is how you would account for stars being measured at billions of light years away via the Hubble shift mechanism. This is, in my view, one of *the* main issues or two surrounding YEC.

Welcome to the boards, by the way!

I have two issues:

YOu seem to equate OEC with evolution. There are PLENTY of Christians who believe that the universe is billions of years old and do not beleive in naturalistic evolution.

when the term literal is used as an exclusive term to support YEC, I think it does a disservice to general interpretation of scripture. ALso it then creates a false boundary where those who support OEC are categorized as not believing scripture, not supporting scripture first, or labeling us as "believing Genesis 1 is a myth" or an allegory.

I firmly support scripture, I DO NOT believe Genesis 1 is a myth or an allegory, some fable.

The Bible says many times that God "stretched out the heavens" which makes sense to me that light from far away could reach us quickly. Also, there is proof that science has slowed down light and actually stopped it completely. It means that light speed has not always been constant.

God has it all figured out - we should allow His Word to be the ultimate authority in our lives and allow our thinking to be built upon it - not man's ideas.

These are my thoughts on the matter. I hope that they can help add a different take than was previously thought.

Easy... please give me evidence for a global flood and a mechanism by which the survivors re-populated the earth (both man and animals/plants) just in time for recorded history (which actually was ongoing during the Flood).

I have yet to have anyone do this successfully.

Also a good point by zoegirl: How do you refute a Christian with OEC beliefs? They use Genesis to back their beliefs too and they fit better into the reality of Old Earth.

Daniel wrote:The first question I would propose is how you would account for stars being measured at billions of light years away via the Hubble shift mechanism. This is, in my view, one of *the* main issues or two surrounding YEC.

Welcome to the boards, by the way!

Thanks for your warm welcome.

Daniel,

Admittedly, the distance start light problem is one of the biggest difficulties that the YEC model faces. However, it does not prove or disprove the YEC theory one way or another. In fact, there a few ideas floating around that you may be aware of that are currently being studied today. Like anything in Science, there are assumptions that are made when discussing how old the earth is in relation to distant light. A publication was already introduced regarding this topic, so I will just reiterate some of its points here. Assumptions generally are:


o the speed of light has always remained consistent
o time flows at the same rate in all conditions
o that all time is synchronized
o all phenomena can be explained in natural law (did God use nature to do it or did God do it out right? If so, is this lack of natural evidence proof against the obvious creation model as depicted in the Bible?)

Obviously, I am not going to cover all these assumptions. It is generally accepted amongst all scientist that the speed of light has been constant. However, the assumption that time flows at the same rate under all conditions is false.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate in which time passes is affected by motion and gravity (aka time-dilation). Gravity is said to slow down the passage of time. As a result, events that take place can appear to be taking a longer time from one perspective, and a shorter time in another person's perspective. In relation to the star light issue, what can take billions of years measured by clocks in deep space may take 1000 years by earth's time standard. This is of course based on the assumption that the earth could be a gravitational well. At any rate, it is not a one solve all theory but is still an ongoing investigation.

Time synchronization:

The assumption here is that our time here is synchronized with the time of the light source. However, relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. The example often given to explain this is a plane leaving Kentucky for Colorado in a 2-hour flight. The plane leaves at 4:00pm and arrives at its destination at 4:00pm. Judging by local time it would be an instant trip, universal time it would be a 2-hour trip. If we assume the bible is talking about local time in the creation, we could theorize that the light would leave the star at day 4 and reach earth on day 4 cosmic local time.

Natural Law

Can all phenomena be explained by natural law? YEC believe this view to be anti-biblical because the bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural law. While natural law can describe how the universe is upheld, God is supernatural and can act outside of this law. So it is reasonable for one to ask if God used a natural process to get the light to the earth? Absence of the evidence to the contrary is not proof against a supernatural creation.

Finally, YEC would submit that those who advocate the big bang as part of the theory for how creation began also have there own star light issue. It has been observed that the galaxy is mostly uniform in temperature. In order to be uniform in temperature, the objects had to be on contact with one another. For example, Heat flows from hot to cold. Therefore, the heat from the stars had to flow to cooler stars to form an equilibrium temperature between the two stars. Now heat and energy can only take place at the speed of light. From earths perspective, if you look at a star in the west that's 10 billion light years away, and then look at a star in the east at equal temperature and distance (10 billion light years) , you can then conclude that they are 20 billion light years apart from each other. Therefore, the problem arises in that the universe is only 14 billion years old. The light or heat has not reached the other star yet. The galaxy is too young to form a uniform temperature through out.

In conclusion, the star light theory does not prove an old earth or a young earth at this point and is not valid argument against a young earth.

Obviously, I am not going to cover all these assumptions. It is generally accepted amongst all scientist that the speed of light has been constant. However, the assumption that time flows at the same rate under all conditions is false.

if YEC's disagree with the speed of light being constant, I'd love to see them try and prove that it was slower or faster in the past. Why should we believe it was any different 10 billions years ago? YEC's don't want to believe it because it doesn't work with their timetable. If constant speed of light over time was consistent with YEC, then YEC's would accept it with no question. Just another example of "it doesn't fit my interpretation so it must have been different in the past". You have to provide proof for that stance to change any theory!

From earths perspective, if you look at a star in the west that's 10 billion light years away, and then look at a star in the east at equal temperature and distance (10 billion light years) , you can then conclude that they are 20 billion light years apart from each other. Therefore, the problem arises in that the universe is only 14 billion years old.

What? You seem to be judging the distance based on Earth's perspective, not the stars themselves. I'll ignore the "east/west" thing even though our earthly directions mean nothing to positions in deep Space. i know what you mean.

If Star A is 10 billion LY's away from Earth and Star B is 10 billion LY's away from Earth, this is no problem for a 14 billion year old Universe since it takes 10 billion years for the light from EACH star to reach Earth. They may be 20 BLY's apart from EACH OTHER, but they are still 10 BLY's away from Earth and their light had ample time to get to Earth. If you were standing on Star A, however, you should not be able to see Star B. If you can go to Star A and see Star B in this scenario you would be able to disprove the 14 BYO Universe. This is the only way your point would be valid.

BTW, I'd love to see your reply to my query in my last post

zoegirl wrote:I have two issues:

YOu seem to equate OEC with evolution. There are PLENTY of Christians who believe that the universe is billions of years old and do not beleive in naturalistic evolution.

when the term literal is used as an exclusive term to support YEC, I think it does a disservice to general interpretation of scripture. ALso it then creates a false boundary where those who support OEC are categorized as not believing scripture, not supporting scripture first, or labeling us as "believing Genesis 1 is a myth" or an allegory.

I firmly support scripture, I DO NOT believe Genesis 1 is a myth or an allegory, some fable.

Zoegirl,

The fact that you feel that using a literal translation creates this false boundary is your interpretation. I never indicated that OEC are any less or any more of a believer in scripture then a YEC. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and I accept that.

With that said, it is still my belief that science plays a major role in how an OEC interpret scripture. If it were not for modern theories, you would have no reason to think the earth was very old based on a purely biblical interpretation. Saying otherwise is just a lie in my humble opinion (of course, it is all moot if you concede). So in essence, belief in the OEC model requires knowledge of todays scientific theories, not just the Bible.

On the other side of this is the YEC model, which I believe can be supported on the merits of the Bible alone. However, the scientific facts today do fall into place, as it should, into that model.

Thanks for your insite!

OEC was around well before modern science. In fact, it wasn't until the YEC response to Darwin and modern science that YEC in its more popular form arose.

I suggest you take a close look at the history of the beliefs of the church in this regard before making generalities that OEC is not based upon a literal reading of the Biblical text.

Man-ofGod wrote:

zoegirl wrote:I have two issues:

YOu seem to equate OEC with evolution. There are PLENTY of Christians who believe that the universe is billions of years old and do not beleive in naturalistic evolution.

when the term literal is used as an exclusive term to support YEC, I think it does a disservice to general interpretation of scripture. ALso it then creates a false boundary where those who support OEC are categorized as not believing scripture, not supporting scripture first, or labeling us as "believing Genesis 1 is a myth" or an allegory.

I firmly support scripture, I DO NOT believe Genesis 1 is a myth or an allegory, some fable.

Zoegirl,

The fact that you feel that using a literal translation creates this false boundary is your interpretation. I never indicated that OEC are any less or any more of a believer in scripture then a YEC. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and I accept that.

With that said, it is still my belief that science plays a major role in how an OEC interpret scripture. If it were not for modern theories, you would have no reason to think the earth was very old based on a purely biblical interpretation. Saying otherwise is just a lie in my humble opinion (of course, it is all moot if you concede). So in essence, belief in the OEC model requires knowledge of todays scientific theories, not just the Bible.

On the other side of this is the YEC model, which I believe can be supported on the merits of the Bible alone. However, the scientific facts today do fall into place, as it should, into that model.

Thanks for your insite!

But why in the world should science NOT play a role?!?! Science is merely observing the world that God created. AS such His world is a TESTIMONY to HIm, just as His word.

We are not raising up science above scripture. We are saying that God's creation is a testimony to Him. His creation shows His glory and handiwork. His majesty.

Going back to the literal aspect, I wanted to clear that up. I am glad you don't view us as any less of believer's. THere is, however, a common notion that YEC interpretation is the correct one.

As CAnuckster pointed out, YEC is actually a young camp.

LOok, it's great if you want to believe the universe is young based on scripture alone. In fact, I would far rather hear that someone is willing to trust that we jsut don't have all of the answers(after all, there is, frankly, a possibility that 10 years from now we will all look back and marvel at the new observations or mathematical models that support a younger universe). What I don't consider great is the idea that there is physical evidence to SUPPORT YEC, because there simply just isn't right now.

zoegirl wrote:LOok, it's great if you want to believe the universe is young based on scripture alone. In fact, I would far rather hear that someone is willing to trust that we jsut don't have all of the answers(after all, there is, frankly, a possibility that 10 years from now we will all look back and marvel at the new observations or mathematical models that support a younger universe). What I don't consider great is the idea that there is physical evidence to SUPPORT YEC, because there simply just isn't right now.

True... My belief is that YEC puts the powers of God beyond that of the miraculous and into unbelievable fables.

zoegirl wrote:
But why in the world should science NOT play a role?!?! Science is merely observing the world that God created. AS such His world is a TESTIMONY to HIm, just as His word.

I am not against science. Science only serves as testimony to God's word. Furthermore, its not the facts in science I am against. However, the theories that are passed on like facts are bothersome. It is not factual that the earth or the universe is the age OEC and evolutionist claim it is. However, the science community is head over heals in this thinking. It is not hard to indoctrinate a large group of people into one type of thinking.

We are not raising up science above scripture. We are saying that God's creation is a testimony to Him. His creation shows His glory and handiwork. His majesty.

I think OEC honestly believe this. However, if you really look at the reality,your putting the Bible in the context of scientific theory. Therefore, scientific theory is the final authority on creation and OEC is going to try to make the Bible fit into the model of scientific theory.

Going back to the literal aspect, I wanted to clear that up. I am glad you don't view us as any less of believer's. THere is, however, a common notion that YEC interpretation is the correct one.

It is the correct one

As CAnuckster pointed out, YEC is actually a young camp.

Canuckter is way off the mark on this one. It is the revival of YEC (if you want to call it that) that has been on the rise for the past 40 some odd years. Charles Darwin went to school for theology, then eventually read Charles Lyell's book and lost his faith in the bible specifically because his worldview did not fit in with what the Bible taught. His faith was destroyed. This was a turning point in Darwin's life and he was strictly anti-biblical from that point on.

Furthermore, I do not see how time should have any bearing on credibility of a belief system. After all, most scientific beliefs today are quite young. Now the YEC can appear to be young from a historical standpoint if you use sources documented outside of scripture. However, so is the protestant faith. I do not know your viewpoint, but after years of brainwashing by the catholic faith, there are many Bible beliefs today that are quite young thanks to the protestant reformation.

Look, it's great if you want to believe the universe is young based on scripture alone. In fact, I would far rather hear that someone is willing to trust that we jsut don't have all of the answers(after all, there is, frankly, a possibility that 10 years from now we will all look back and marvel at the new observations or mathematical models that support a younger universe).

I believe the Bible has the answers, just not the details about how it all went down (I am sure the OEC agree on this point as well).

What I don't consider great is the idea that there is physical evidence to SUPPORT YEC, because there simply just isn't right now.

I think you are gravely mistaken on this point. Nevertheless, I cannot fault you because many people, as I was, are unawares of the design that is all around that attest to the YEC viewpoint. See my other replies for more detail (coming soon).

Gman wrote:
True... My belief is that YEC puts the powers of God beyond that of the miraculous and into unbelievable fables.

Sorry to here that you feel the literal account of Genesis sounds like a fable.

Man-ofGod wrote:

Gman wrote:
True... My belief is that YEC puts the powers of God beyond that of the miraculous and into unbelievable fables.

Sorry to here that you feel the literal account of Genesis sounds like a fable.

Oh boy, here we go again.

Man-ofGod (like your name by the way), Gman and whole lotta of us folk around here most assuredly feel that the literal account of Genesis leads to the only inescapable conclusion of an old earth. YEC does not and cannot claim exclusivity on the literal interpretation of scripture.

Himantolophus wrote: if YEC's disagree with the speed of light being constant, I'd love to see them try and prove that it was slower or faster in the past. Why should we believe it was any different 10 billions years ago? YEC's don't want to believe it because it doesn't work with their timetable. If constant speed of light over time was consistent with YEC, then YEC's would accept it with no question. Just another example of "it doesn't fit my interpretation so it must have been different in the past". You have to provide proof for that stance to change any theory!

I do not recall ever stating that light was not constant through out history. I just simply said it does not prove that the universe is old or new: especially if you use the big bang model.

What? You seem to be judging the distance based on Earth's perspective, not the stars themselves. I'll ignore the "east/west" thing even though our earthly directions mean nothing to positions in deep Space. I know what you mean.

Whatever works for you.

If Star A is 10 billion LY's away from Earth and Star B is 10 billion LY's away from Earth, this is no problem for a 14 billion year old Universe since it takes 10 billion years for the light from EACH star to reach Earth. They may be 20 BLY's apart from EACH OTHER, but they are still 10 BLY's away from Earth and their light had ample time to get to Earth. If you were standing on Star A, however, you should not be able to see Star B. If you can go to Star A and see Star B in this scenario you would be able to disprove the 14 BYO Universe. This is the only way your point would be valid.

You missed the point entirely. My point is that the Big Bang theory has its own issue. According to big bang, we should be 14 billion years. However, the universe is mostly uniform in temperature. How could that be if the universe is only 14 billion years old. Heat travels at the speed of light, hot to cold. If you drop an ice cube in a cup of hot coffee, the coffee may become luke warm, this is called the equilibrium temperature. This is what you see when you look at most of the universe. Another words, Star A in our example can see the light of Star B. The physics of the big bang does not allow for this. They got a problem. Either the universe is too old for the big bang to be true, or there are other factors to consider. I mentioned a few of these factors in my original response. Finally, this is an acknowledged issue and is referred to as the Horizon Problem. I do not expect you to solve it in this post unless you going for a Nobel peace prize.

Let A degrees = B degrees

............10,000 LY...................10,000 LY
STAR A---------------------EARTH----------------------- STAR B
|__________________20,000 LY________________|

BTW, I'd love to see your reply to my query in my last post

Working on it! Unfortunately, I have barely any free time nowadays.