Evidence for God from Science

Day-Age Interpretation

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

day one
This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness"

how can rich deem make that assertion, if the bible states cleartly, the sun was created at day 4?

1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

This question comes up quite a bit around here. First of all, did you read anything else on that page? These are all quotes from the link you posted:

"For example, the first rule of the scientific method is to establish the initial conditions, or the frame of reference. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the frame of reference is "the surface of the waters" of the earth. Most people have made the mistake of assuming the frame of reference of Genesis 1 is heaven or somewhere above the earth."

"What does the text specifically say? The heavens (universe, solar system, sun, earth, etc.) were already created before the first "day" (Genesis 1:1)"

"Both science and the Bible have told us that at the earth's creation, it was covered with a dense layer of clouds and gases which would have made it dark at its surface. Genesis 1:2 says, "darkness was over the surface of the deep." Next, God removed much of the cloud cover, when He stated, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness" (Genesis 1:4). It is very clear from the text that the sun had already been created and the earth was rotating on its axis, since there was light (day) and darkness (night) (Genesis 1:5)."

"Next the translucent cloud layer was removed so that the sun, moon and stars shown through. Notice the unusual construction in Genesis 1:14 which states, "Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;'" "Let there be" is an unusual way to describe de novo creation (see also verse 1:3). I believe that at this point God removed the translucent cloud cover from the planet to allow the stars, moon, and Sun to be seen from the surface of the earth (the frame of reference of all Genesis 1)."


So what he's saying (and according to the day-age interpretation) is that the universe, our solar system, our sun and all the planets were created before Day 1 began (Genesis 1:1). At the beginning of Day 1, the earth was already created and was covered with water (Genesis 1:2). This verse also gives us the frame of reference for creation- "the surface of the deep." So the creation story is being told as if we are on the earth watching these things around us, not in space somewhere looking down on the earth. Also this verse tells us the earth was completely dark. This is apparently because of a "dense layer of clouds and gases" that blocked light from being visible.

So on Day 1, when God said "Let there be light", "God removed much of the cloud cover" allowing some of the light from the Sun to be visible, but apparently not completely. Then later, on Day 4 when God said "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens", the cloud layer was removed completely so the Sun and stars could be seen clearly.

Also, in verse 16, the word "made" in Hebrew ('asah) is different from the word "created" (bara') in verse 1. I think bara' means to make out of nothing and 'asah means to form out of what is already there, but I'm not versed well enough in Hebrew to explain this. I'm sure someone else here can though.

ok, thanks for the response.

the sun formed from a massive comological Nubulea and dust cloud...It formed, it wasnt summoned into being. But the chances of the solar system being how it is are probably not fantasticly probable, but definitely possible. I think you deny science's great power to explain things when you immediately resort to god, sure there probably is a god, but how do you know that he doesn't work with nebulas and dust clouds and turns cosmological junk into beautiful jewels?

Kristoffer wrote:the sun formed from a massive comological Nubulea and dust cloud...It formed, it wasnt summoned into being. But the chances of the solar system being how it is are probably not fantasticly probable, but definitely possible. I think you deny science's great power to explain things when you immediately resort to god, sure there probably is a god, but how do you know that he doesn't work with nebulas and dust clouds and turns cosmological junk into beautiful jewels?

Well God does use those things. Kristoffer we believe that God used science, or as I put it, "God is the greatest scientist, period."

Gabrielman wrote: Well God does use those things. Kristoffer we believe that God used science, or as I put it, "God is the greatest scientist, period."

Well being able to use the universe as your petri dish sure would help a scientist, nasa/esa/bspa/jsa/RussiaSpacepeople is working on it!

I would really like to have a commentary going on about evolution here, there has got to be some positive things that can be said for it from you guys. I know it isn't exactly your "cup of tea" as they say across the sea in england...But if you give it a chance you could probably be convinced that it is a wonderful thing and as a certain bishop once put "among the greatest of gods works" Another thread and another time I suppose.

Kristoffer wrote:I would really like to have a commentary going on about evolution here, there has got to be some positive things that can be said for it from you guys. I know it isn't exactly your "cup of tea" as they say across the sea in england...But if you give it a chance you could probably be convinced that it is a wonderful thing and as a certain bishop once put "among the greatest of gods works" Another thread and another time I suppose.

Well, everyone agrees "evolution" per se is true. It just depends on what philosophies get smuggled in that causes controversy.

Macro-evolution and about 3.5 billion years. Those would be the perameters, with some kind of event introducting the original organic material to the earth small amount of time prior to that.

And we are not going to smuggle Christ or Christianity into Evolution either? even if "all things were made through him and for him"

Kristoffer wrote:Macro-evolution and about 3.5 billion years. Those would be the perameters, with some kind of event introducting the original organic material to the earth small amount of time prior to that.

And we are not going to smuggle Christ or Christianity into Evolution either? even if "all things were made through him and for him"

Evolutionary changes within the genetic code of complex life due to environmental pressures I can agree with. This has been demonstrated and seen. However, what non-circumstantial evidence is there supporting macroevolution besides the metaphysics of naturalism?

speciation has been observed? All forms basically are transitional,
how do you even know humans will look like in a few million years time? We might be very different, perhaps different enough to be a different species even.

Do forest's strike you as a designed economy or a competitive one? If all the trees where the same height it would mean they would waste less energy growing, but grow they do...Height conveys a advantage over neighbouring trees. If you can honestly say a tree is designed and be serious then explain forests?

The only explanation that is possible is "to provide us with wood", unsatisfying really because if they are just here for us to have wood then why are they almost always some of the most bio-diverse places on the planet? Perhaps Forests are here so we can have coal?(i love my coal fire) That of course would rule out a young earth, but the alternative is, it is just DNA reproducing itself that is the only meaning. DNA making more Copies by the roundabout route of trees.

Evolutionary Biology is not something you should cut out of Biology, why not cut organic chemistry? THAT IS SO BORING. Its[Evolution] basically the foundation of contemporary biological sciences. Its not going anywhere any time soon, funnily enough neither are gods.

Macro-evolution and about 3.5 billion years. Those would be the perameters, with some kind of event introducting the original organic material to the earth small amount of time prior to that.

There you go. There's a faith statement if there every was one. Just take some time, mix it in with evolution, a little miracle matter, cross your fingers, and here we are.

Perhaps Forests are here so we can have coal?(i love my coal fire) That of course would rule out a young earth

Would it?

the sun formed from a massive comological Nubulea and dust cloud...It formed, it wasnt summoned into being. But the chances of the solar system being how it is are probably not fantasticly probable, but definitely possible

Prove how the sun was formed. And please enlighten us with those statistics.

If you are interested and curious you could find out for yourself about how coal beds are laid down about how things are not miraculous as in impossible but as in not very likely. Also just find a decent book about Stars, I guess you believe the sun is a big ball of coal right? Its not! Its a big sphere of plasma and the reason why space travel is dangerous (solar wind is a type of radiation) but do not worry, eventually we are going to leave earth, visit mars, visit other bodies in our solar system and then go else where in the galaxy. It happen will one day. Science lets us accomplish anything, if you think science is not your friend then why try to use it to prove your god?

The universe is ours, not just this dinky little rock. Expand your horizons and actually try to believe that "anything is possible", or is that not right? I think the worst kind of faith is anything that kills all exploration of the earth and the universe, if faith ever became that powerful again I would fight it, but when it is weak and harmless i am totally fine with it damnit!, i might even join in. Just try to prove to me that your mind is not closed, the world isn't a closed loop neither should your mind be.

Kristoff, lay off the rhetoric and actually discuss things instead of putting words in other's mouths.

Pathetic.
But, hey, we were warned.

ElShamah wrote:Day-Age Interpretation

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

day one
This was the light of the Sun (already created) which now "separated light from darkness"

how can rich deem make that assertion, if the bible states cleartly, the sun was created at day 4?

1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

I tried to explain it best here.. Basically the atmosphere was cleared to reveal the sun and stars on day 4. In the fourth day it doesn't say that God created the sun, moon and the stars. It states that he "made" them, which is the Hebrew word "asa" translated as the verb "made". When the Hebrew word "asa" is used it is usually used to denote an action already completed.

Genesis 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Genesis 1:16 simply does not specify when in the past the sun, moon, and stars were made. However in Genesis 1:1, it does says that it was created using the Hebrew word "erets" or "hashamayim we ha' erets," heavens (plural) and the earth (singular). "Hashamayim we ha' erets" consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe. All matter and energy and whatever else it contains....

The scientific proof for Genesis