Evidence for God from Science

Hi Folks,

I'm a new guy here. I wanted to share my story a little bit and namely share how I have become a passionate Young Earth Creationist.

My parents were immigrants, so my siblings and I are first generation from my family born in the USA. My heritage is Hungarian. I'm the youngest out of ten kids. I'm 32 years old and my oldest sibling is 50. My parents are both deceased. I lost my mother when I was 6 and my father when I was 23. I never knew any of my grandparents.

I was supposed to be a statistic since my mother was well advanced with cancer when giving birth to me. The local doctors considered me such a high risk delivery that the only procedure they offered was an abortion. My parents, being devout Roman Catholics would not hear of it so they sought other physicians to deliver me, several miles from the homestead. I am pro-life for obvious scriptural and personal reasons.

None of my brothers or sisters stayed Roman Catholic. My oldest brother was the first to become a Fundegelical Christian (I was dubbed this at FRDB; I liked it so much I kept it). He kind of paved the way for others in our family. I accepted Christ as my savior when I was almost 19 years old. Today six of the ten kids are Christians and four of the Christians are sold out YECs. I know...


I spent the first ten years of my new born life growing and learning in what it meant to be a Christian. I always had a growing passion for my Lord but it wasn't until I was 29 that I did something unacceptable among some Christians, I started basically asking “Why do I believe what I believe?” There seemed to be a consensus view among fellow believers that this was potentially dangerous and I should just have faith. Looking back I guess I could see the potential snares that were waiting for me but I was definitely hearing God's voice saying “You can trust me” when I asked the question. Still, I felt like I was committing some mortal sin by asking things like “Can I really trust the Bible as infallible and if so what does this mean?” and “If I just believe something unbelievable by faith aren't I just doing what the Cults do by conditioning their members through esoteric pronouncements?”

I started digging and I realized that the Bible has no respect for blind faith either. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (test all things, retain what is good) became my modus operandi. Along with 1 Peter 3:15 (But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear) which shows us that being a convert is one thing, being a disciple is quite different.

My biggest advice for anyone who finds themselves in the same position I did, (this all assumes that you are in regular communion and fellowship with Jesus, by His Spirit, and fellow believers) is this; While questioning whether something is from God or not, the question may come up “is there God or not?” I have found that a good (one of many) circumstantial evidence for God (besides the obvious; “look around you at the designed creation, duh”) was the deceptive and faulty worldviews waiting for you upon rejection of God. When someone like a skeptic or an atheist tries to deconstruct Christianity, a logical question is; “What is your philosophical framework for making such pronouncements?” The skeptic and the atheist find this questioning uncomfortable because they either don't understand the question, don't know, or they know that the tools that allow them to be skeptical and doubtful in a “reasonable” fashion can be employed to even doubt the existence of self!

Wouldn't you want to know what's on offer before stepping out of your worldview? I would. The philosophy of ontology and epistemology are keys to the Christian being wooed by a doubter. If the Bible continues to deliver the best most cohesive worldview historically, evidentially, and subjectively why step out of it to see if you can get back to it from any one of many worldviews that are internally incoherent?

Norm Geisler put it well “While skepticism is not defensible as an epistemological position, it is of value. It acts like a burr in the epistemologist's saddle, demanding that any claim to knowledge is based upon adequate evidence and is free from contradiction or absurdity.”

Okay, enough preaching for now…

So why am I a YEC? I only adopted this view 3 years ago. Before then I was quite comfortable that some of the things evolutionary theory had “proved” fit fine with the Bible because there was no demand in the Bible that Genesis must be taken literally (so I thought). In many ways I really didn't think it had any effect on my faith. It wasn't ever a topic of discussion at church except for the occasional sermon on how evolution is false but the specificity of what this meant was always very general. Things like stuff can't come from nowhere, the complexity of the universe, and the complexity of life were always the spring boards for disproving evolution as a creative mechanism but even these pastors/teachers seemed convinced by certain data that evolution was proven in various forms just not the overarching brand that leads to atheism or agnosticism.

While I was working at a prior company (I'm a machinist/draftsman) I was giving my little general spiel to a fellow Christian, how I felt quite comfortable that aspects of Darwinian/Cosmic Evolution fit quite fine with the worldview (though I didn't call it a worldview at the time) of Christianity. He rather quickly said “No they don't” and told me he wanted me to watch a video he had. He gave a rather poorly done but informative video that showed how geological anomalies are best explained by catastrophes. The topic of discussion was the aftermath of Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 and how it related to Noah's flood. I found it compelling but I didn't find it conclusive. However, I did graciously thank the man for sharing it with me and found the video compelling enough to allow the information therein to become part of my mental furniture. I sincerely wish I had the title and author to share but I don't remember. It really was a homemade video that would have little weight in any discussion anyway.

A couple years went by and I found myself debating over the historicity and infallibility attributed to the Bible. I felt so much of it was misunderstood, mistranslated, and lost in cultural meaning that, yeah, it was the Word of God but how complete was it? Could we trust it in detail? I really didn't know. I was brushed away with the exhortation to stop questioning so much and just pray about it. Well, I did.

I'm sure Kent Hovind is a character that has been discussed in great detail here but I must say that I was quite compelled by his approach to explaining the YEC position. He helped open up some mental blocks I had in very interesting ways. He rubs a lot of people the wrong way but that isn't a good enough reason to ignore the truth he brings to the table. He certainly was a booger-head but he was a funny booger-head if you have broad enough shoulders and I concede that as a teacher he should have been a little more careful in what information he presented and how. Since I have studied his material and the material of Ken Ham and other YECs, at AiG for example, my view of the Word and the World has been revolutionized. I would hardly consider myself a casual observer. I have vigorously cross-referenced material. I have great respect for people like William Lane Craig, and John Lennox who concede to an old earth view. Though William Lane Craig seems to be shifting into a neutral position based on a recent talk I've heard. (http://bethinking.org/who-am-i/is-life- ... onable.htm) John Lennox doesn't seem to make a hard stance on this either, he seems to feel there are better things to talk about and from watching his effectiveness, I would say he's right where God has called him to be in defense of the faith.

I have a debate between Hugh Ross and Kent Hovind that I found disappointing. It wasn't that I felt like Hovind was out of line based on data, I felt like he didn't recognize that he was talking to his brother in Christ, the way he should have. They conducted the debate on the John Ankerberg Show and Ankerberg tried hard to keep the peace, who himself finds the day/age theory as an acceptable Christian view, other then this I have found Hovind's debating skills unique and unmatched and, yeah, a little unorthodox for a Christian. Here's my favorite because Michael Shermer was his toughest apponent...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5420430733

I have discovered that I like debates as one of my favorite learning tools and posits of contemporary research material. I've found that debates are the arena where people get to pull out their best arguments. If you can't pull together a coherent basic argument, without appealing to some esoteric authority, I have a tendency to question the well being of the idea in the first place. The reason I say this is because I've found that YECs aren't normally slouches when they debate. William Lane Craig, Alister McGrath, and John Lennox aren't slouches either on the debate scene but I've noticed something. It seems that the weakest part of their debate seems to fall in where they concede to the popular view that the evidence shows a gradual haphazard creation event that took billions of years before culminating in the purpose of creation; man.

So hopefully I just opened up a bunch of fun “cans of worms”. I know I just said lots of things that are very ambiguous, so needle me with as many specific questions as you please. Don't feel like you have to be too nice to the new guy. I can take it. If I'm wrong about something, I'll change my mind. It's as simple as that. I have a fair warning. I am primarily an audio/visual kind of guy. Articles are okay, if they're relatively short, but I may need led to the meat of an argument to have a springboard of discussion out of a long article.

Adam,

I really appreciate your testimony and the fac that you do want to test everything.

My biggest problems of YEC is that

1) It imparts a meaning to scripture that just isn't there. based on English translations. FOrcing a meaning that doesn't exist in the original Hebrew

2) They twist scientific equations and do so blatantly. "Forgetting" to include an important variable in a equation that favors a Young earth, See below

3) Often, their debates revolve not aroung strong arguments but emotional straw-man arguments. They may win on style or charisma, or by browbeating their opponents, but rarely on actual points. (I am really stressing YEC versus OEC, not those that debate Christianity versus Atheism). One of our teachers went to a debate and his wxact phrase was "ashamed of how the young earth creationist didn't address the points"


Sadly, many don't have a good understanding of biology more than perhaps a first year college student and then are surprised and indignant when PhD's laugh at their attempts to discredit basic information.

THis from the website's main page

Specific Scientific Rebuttals to Young-Earth "Scientific Proofs"
All of the "scientific" evidence for a young earth suffer from one of the following flaws:

Faulty assumptions
Use of faulty data
Avoidance of data that refutes the position
I will be adding more rebuttals as I respond to specific questions. Here is the current list:

Is the Speed of Light Decreasing? - An analysis of the theoretical and observational flaws in the hypothesis that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Actual data and graphs from Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field Proves the Earth is Young
Polonium Halos in Primordial Rock Prove the Earth is Young
Not Enough Dust on the Earth or Moon Prove the Earth is Young
The Rings Around Saturn Must be Young
The Slowing of the Earth's Rotation Rate Means the Earth Must be Young
The Human Population is Increasing Too Rapidly
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones - Is it really "fresh" tissue?
Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth? by Matthew S. Tiscareno - Includes a long list of claims
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology by Dr. Edward L. Wright (offsite)
A Visit To Mt. St. Helens rebuttal to the idea that Mt. Saint Helens provides evidence for young earth "geology" by John N. Clayton (offsite)
A warning from Saint Augustine (4th century) to Christians about the creation:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html


Here is another link, one of the best summaries about the controversry

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

Bottom line: God's creation is a true testament to HIM and HIS works in the past.

Yeah, If I put this in the wrong place, can someone move it?

cslewislover wrote:I know there are a lot of threads here that discuss the old earth, young earth debate, so it'd be interesting for you to go to those and post your opinions and/or information. What you said about Kent Hovind being a turd (or whatever) - I remember that from seeing a video or two of his. Is Ham the same way? I think he might be. It was one of them that I saw in a video say that, basically, if you don't believe in YEC then you're not a real Christian. That is not only a turn-off, it's unacceptable.

I can see why someone would presume that YECs think OECs can't be Christians but that simply isn't the case. I often have to reiterate how I strongly recognize the diversity in the body because it's often presumed that I feel my position is the only one that allows for Christianity. I have studied Hovind and Ham closely and they would agree on this point. Ken Ham isn't a booger like Hovind but I guess anyone who finds something you don't believe as plain in scripture would have a tendency to rub a nerve.

cslewislover wrote:I don't listen to people that speak that way about issues such as these, where there's plenty of evidence for various veiwpoints. The bible is totally true and inspired, but it is not all literal. But I can't get into this debate, really, since I'm not all that concerned about it and so I forget the details. I do know, however, that the head of our churches, the Calvary Chapels, publicly said recently that he doesn't know which is correct, old earth or young earth. He had been a YEC for a very long time (he's in his 80s now), so I think that is saying something.

This is actually a really cool topic. Some of the details that YECs bring up about science are actually very educational in the area of what we can and can't pronounce with dogmatism when it comes to data strictly from the scientific method. I think we give ourselves too much credit as humans for having things "figured out" on our own.

zoegirl wrote:Adam,

I really appreciate your testimony and the fac that you do want to test everything.

My biggest problems of YEC is that

1) It imparts a meaning to scripture that just isn't there. based on English translations. Forcing a meaning that doesn't exist in the original Hebrew

I would personally say an exegeses of Genesis, even from my interlinear Bible makes a literal six day creation account quite acceptable if it's not mandated however I can concede that the eisegesis of the passages into ages is not farfetched. I would argue that it's unnecessary. However, when you fast forward to Exodus there is a rather plain confirmation of the six day creation account. Again, could you use eisegesis to read ages into the text. Well, I suppose, but why?

(Ex 20:11) 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

(Ex 31:17) 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

(2 Peter 3:4-5) 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old , and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

2 Peter 3:4-5 has an interesting ring to it, the interlinear word for word translation, makes the points even more forcefully. The first point is "all things continue as they were" describes the evolutionary scientist as too willing to assume uniformitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformita ... _(science)) when coming to interpretive conclusions of the evidence (tectonic plates moving a certain amount per year so they have always moved a certain amount per year). Uniformitarianism isn't always bad but can be missleading when feeling that the evidence for an old earth is conclusive. I think the assumptions should at least be understood on both sides regardless of what side you come down on YEC or OEC.

The second part is even more telling "by the word of God the heavens were of old" the interlinear Bible says "that heavens were of old". I think this is interesting because the day Adam was made he was an adult. It seems the day the universe was made it was an adult also.

zoegirl wrote:2) They twist scientific equations and do so blatantly. "Forgetting" to include an important variable in a equation that favors a Young earth, See below

I don't think the equations hold the key to this discussion. I think it is much simpler than that. There is good repeatable science in the field of say, radiometric dating. Measurement of radioactive isotopes can be done with great accuracy but the extrapolation that this proves an old earth is hypothetical. This short video introduces some of the assumptions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lRQiNjJoBw

This video mentions the cosmic dust on the moon argument that you mentioned but I don't know enough about it to argue for or against it. The other information prior to it however, I found quite compelling to at least cast doubt on the reliability of radiometric dating.

zoegirl wrote:3) Often, their debates revolve not aroung strong arguments but emotional straw-man arguments. They may win on style or charisma, or by browbeating their opponents, but rarely on actual points. (I am really stressing YEC versus OEC, not those that debate Christianity versus Atheism). One of our teachers went to a debate and his wxact phrase was "ashamed of how the young earth creationist didn't address the points"

I'm a draftsman not a scientist but I have to understand scientific principles to do my job. Basically when I hear the science that has proven an old earth I'm seeking to understand the assumptions. I wrote an essay in a very hostile environment to my ideas. It was interesting how the conversation unfolded. I think the conversation stayed civil for the most part but read beyond my essay at your own risk.

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5626523

zoegirl wrote:"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)

I really like this quote. It applies to someone, either YECs or OECs

Sure, but it will be applied moreso to YEC, because they do ignore observations that are then verfired by others and other measurements. It's almost akin to looking at the sky, seeing it's blue, and saying "hey, the sky is read"

zoegirl wrote:Sure, but it will be applied moreso to YEC, because they do ignore observations that are then verfired by others and other measurements. It's almost akin to looking at the sky, seeing it's blue, and saying "hey, the sky is read"

If I put myself in your shoes, I think I understand what you're saying. Would you agree that scientific endeavors have varying degrees of reliability depending upon the discipline? The exacting precision involved in the philosophy of mathematics starts the scale of hard sciences and goes down a progressive slope of uncertainty with things like physics on the hard science end and evolutionary theory on the hypothetical end.

When I see textbook evolutionary theory taught. I feel that the students are being told what to believe more than how to think. Even as a YEC I would hesitate to have Cosmic/Darwinian evolution taken out of public school textbooks. Like Kent Hovind, I think the things proven false should be taken out or at least discussed historically but evolutionary theory is a great area where we can start to understand the concept of bias and presumptions even in the field of science.

zoegirl wrote:I will be adding more rebuttals as I respond to specific questions. Here is the current list:

Is the Speed of Light Decreasing? - An analysis of the theoretical and observational flaws in the hypothesis that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Actual data and graphs from Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field Proves the Earth is Young
Polonium Halos in Primordial Rock Prove the Earth is Young
Not Enough Dust on the Earth or Moon Prove the Earth is Young
The Rings Around Saturn Must be Young
The Slowing of the Earth's Rotation Rate Means the Earth Must be Young
The Human Population is Increasing Too Rapidly
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones - Is it really "fresh" tissue?
Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth? by Matthew S. Tiscareno - Includes a long list of claims
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology by Dr. Edward L. Wright (offsite)
A Visit To Mt. St. Helens rebuttal to the idea that Mt. Saint Helens provides evidence for young earth "geology" by John N. Clayton (offsite)
A warning from Saint Augustine (4th century) to Christians about the creation:

Here is my big question. When we talk about 'proof', what do we mean? Proof is a much more slippery word then people let on. Zoegirl, I'm most certainly not accusing you personally of being slippery. You have already gained my trust with your candor. I would ask for validation of evidence because we can get swamped in all kinds of opinions if we are bogged down by an improper search for proof, especially in the fields revolving around origins.

Then I would ask you one thing. Show me how ALL of those pieces of evidence are wrong. Evidence is valid when the results can be validated with one another (ie speed of light correlating with radioactive decay...) and when multiple sources receive the same resutls.

And most of the criticism of these from ICR and others? They conveniently leave out factors that sway the results. I would respectfully say that it is not the scientists who are slippery with their data. Believe it or not, their are plenty of Christian scientists who study these data and come to the conclusion that the data is not wrong, and it's not because they have not twisted motive to discredit scripture. They love scripture (I teach with two other OEC in my sciecne department and one is engaged to a OEC scientist getting his PhD) They love scripture. They believe it to be infallible.

And many scientists are not that dismissive of God, especially Physicists.

Show me haow all of the above pieces of data are wrong...


Also, why is this so threatening? We do not dismiss scripture, We simply look at the HEbrew and understand that it has multiple meanings. We believe that the Hebrew is literal.

To all,

This topic was moved to the Christian Chit-chat forum. Please go there to continue this (great) discussion.

Byblos.

Byblos wrote:To all,

This topic was moved to the Christian Chit-chat forum. Please go there to continue this (great) discussion.

Byblos.

How should I take the "(great) discussion" part?

...is it - Great Discussion!

or is it...

great discussion.

Adam_777 wrote:

Byblos wrote:To all,

This topic was moved to the Christian Chit-chat forum. Please go there to continue this (great) discussion.

Byblos.

How should I take the "(great) discussion" part?

...is it - Great Discussion!

or is it...

great discussion.

the former I guess, for now, we'll see.

Adam,



OEC is not the same as evolution. Talking about the age of the universe does not mean that you support evolution or naturalistic causes.


We must be careful in discussion so that we don't confuse the issue. When we (OEC) are discussing the age, we are not equating the two and therefore we should separate those issues in the discussion.

Thanks