Evidence for God from Science

Has anybody else seen this documentary? You can view it for free on Netflix, or you can order it online at amazon and/or cloud ten pictures. I would highly reccommend it. It has changed my entire view on Young Earth Creationism, and for me, that took a lot.

It shows evidence for young earth, and presents them in a completely logical and scientific format. I'll be honest, for a very long time I thought YECs were out of touch with science. I was always a full OEC. Not so much anymore. I've never seen a video able to sway me like that before. Everything simply makes perfect sense.

For those who have not seen the documentary, the premise is that the myths of dragons were based upon dinosaurs that existed at the time of man. A big argument against dinosaurs and man existing side by side is that if man were around dinosaurs, they would've been recorded. The explanation for that is simply that they were recorded. Every single culture has stories of dragons. Not simply one or two, where the stories could be dismissed as mere coincidence, but every last one. Some ancient accounts don't even present it as legend, but simply state the existance of dragons matter of factly, as one would state the existance of a horse or a lion. For example, cave art shows a long necked dinosaur amongst many existing animals. Also, the Chinese Zodiac lists the dragon amongst twelve other very real animals, just as if it were real and the ancient Chinese could go and find a dragon.

I know a lot of cultures believe in various mythical creatures that are blatantly false. But when almost every single culture around the world, some of them having no contact with each other, describe similar beasts again and again, there would have to be some basis for these myths. The simplest explanation is the young earth theory, and the ancient stories of dragons are simply dinosaurs before they all died out. They're all extinct by today, but the documentary supposes that the extinction of the dinosaurs is a relatively recent event, and a natural event (species die out all the time). Of course, it is unlikely that all the stories of dinosaurs/dragons are true, it's highly unlikely that dragons/dinosaurs were intelligent shapeshifting beings, or that they could magically control that waters, but it is likely that dinosaurs were the basis of these myths. Dinosaurs are magnificent beasts, and any ancient human would be wondered by them and likely to make legends about them.

It also gives a theory on the Leviathan and Behemoth creatures found in Job. The experts point to a crocdile-like creature believed to have died out long ago (has a complicated name that I can't spell). While a regular crocodile would fit most of the descriptions found in Job 41, this supposedly prehistoric animal is a lot bigger, and also has a pouch in its snout. Even modern science doesn't know what this pouch could be for, but the experts suppose that it could be a chamber where flammible chemicals are mixed, therefore explaining the firebreathing abilities the Leviathan has that remains a mystery. We know for fact that no modern crocodile breathes fire. The documentary also puts forth that the behemoth was a brachiosaur or other similar long necked dinosaur. It's the only thing that fits all the descriptions. The most common theories about behemoth, the elephant or hippo, do not have a tail that could be described as "like a cedar [tree]", they both have pretty puny tails. The brachiosaur is big enough to not be disturbed by a flowing river, and nobody would be able to ensare its eyes or nose with a trap, its neck is far too long and out of reach for that.

The fossilization of dinosaur bones is attributed to the Flood, and this documentary explains it better than I've ever seen it explained before. The flood caused sediment to rapidly bury animals, such as dinosaurs. This burial would've caused rapid fossilization, and I actually found it more believable than the idea that so many just happened to be buried rapidly, as it's actually very complicated to make a fossil.


The documentary also points out a lot of holes in the old earth model. For instance, there aren't near as many known transitional species as there should be. Also, the circular logic sometimes used to date fossils. There are many others, but you'd have to watch the DVD to get it. I'm not a scientist, so I'd probably distort it trying to explain it, and this post is already too long.

Any thoughts on this?

THere's an article addressing many of these issues on the main board.

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

In addition, this article addresses many of the fallacies presented in YEC type presentations of this nature. Note the types of fallacies sometimes appealed to and see if some of these might be present in the material.

You've made many broad statements (or reflected them from the documentary) that don't accurately represent the positions of Old Earth Creationism. They are not the same as evolution.

Beyond that, I can't say more because I haven't viewed the particular production, but I've seen many similar to it in other contexts many times.

THanks for asking.

The documentary doesn't use the fallacies from the article you linked to. It doesn't bring up human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints, in fact it even addresses why we've never found humans and dinosaurs fossilized together; that's just how it happened. There are millions of animals that co-existed but were never fossilized together.

It does mention caveart of the dinosaurs though, which unfortunately the article you linked to didn't address in full, it simply says it doesn't exist. But those cave paintings look exactly like dinosaurs to me.

I looked around on the internet, and here's something I found. Not the most serious video, but watch it until the end. What is that cave painting supposed to be, if not a long necked dinosaur?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-E1CqtU7Wk&NR=1

Also not just cave art. A lot of the documentary focuses on, as the title would suggest, dragons, and how they just keep coming up in every single culture, and that logically this worldwide myth has some real world basis. Also, that cave painting isn't the only one of its kind. There are a few other peices of ancient art that show blatant representation of dinosaurs, specifically that same long necked variety.

The article you mention also states that the Leviathan is just a contemporary crocodile. But what of its ability to breathe fire? We know for a fact that no crocodile today can do that, but there is a supposedly prehistoric crocodile that might be able to do it. And I doubt it was figurative speech, judging from context clue, God is boasting about his creations from Job 35-41. Anytime figurative speech is used, it's an explicit similie, not so when describing the Leviathan's abilities.

As for OEC being different from evolution, may I ask how? I always thought that OEC involved evolution, just that it was divinely guided evolution.

You're confusing Theistic Evolution, a very small subset of OEC with the whole. OEC encompasses a broader spectrum including progressive creationism. If you're interested in understanding better the different positions within the OEC spectrum, it shouldn't take very long on the main page to find multiple articles addressing that. Most people who are OEC and regular on this board hold to a position closer to Progressive Creationism, not Theistic Evolution. It's a very common misnomer applied by some in the YEC position to confuse and lump OEC into some form of evolutionism and it's simply not true and not representative of the positions espoused by most OEC proponents.

In fact, it's ironic, but there are forms of YEC that have to embrace evolution on a much broader scale than OEC because combined with the Noah Flood beeing seen as worldwide and recent it requires an accelerated form of both migration and relocation across the entire globe following the receding of the waters.

As to the points regarding dragons and cave art, the same traditions you mention would equally apply to mythical creatures such as sphinxes, minotaurs, satyrs etc. Further, even YECs concede that Reptiles today are within the line of Dinosaurs and all of the features argued for in now extinct large dinosaurs are readily observed in their smaller counterparts today. It doesn't require the theory put forward by some YEC proponents attempting to make this argument.

And as a matter of fact I don't believe it is true that the assertion that anytime figurative language is used it is an explicit simile is defendable. That's both a circle back to desired conclusion and an absolute assumption imposed upon the text rather than allowing the text, and the original intent of the human author (unless you subscribe to verbal dictation in which case the human author has no involvement at all in the writing and is just a scribe of sorts) and the original understanding of the original audience is drawn from the text itself, not a framework of assumptions that todays' modern reader brings to the text. Hebraic Poetic forms (Most of Job is written in the form of poetry) differ in several regards from English although there are parallels in places.

believ3r, I can't respond to the actual video, because I haven't seen it. But, I will respond to your original post. I used to assume that if I didn't believe in YEC, that by default, I had to believe in a form of Darwinian evolution. I had never heard of OEC, and I just took the word of prominent YECs(Ham, Morris etc.)that the only way to interpret the Bible was in a YEC light. Through my own ignorance I assumed, since I was a Christian, that I had to believe in the YEC translation of the Bible. It seems to me that you may be making the same mistake by some things you said. You wrote:

The documentary also points out a lot of holes in the old earth model. For instance, there aren't near as many known transitional species as there should be.

Most OECs on this board don't believe in transitional species. As far as I know, most OECs here believe that each animal was created by God as a specific kind, and didn't evolve from a completely different kind. This is a mistake that people make when they either 1) don't understand what OEC really is. Or 2) know what OEC is, but choose to be dishonest about what OEC really is. I could be wrong, but you seem not to be too familiar with what OEC really is.

The fossilization of dinosaur bones is attributed to the Flood, and this documentary explains it better than I've ever seen it explained before. The flood caused sediment to rapidly bury animals, such as dinosaurs

Many OECs believe that floods may have caused the burial of animals. OEC just doesn't assume it was all in one "global" flood. Leviathan could very well have been a giant crocodile. Crocs of today are large by our standards. But, just imagine how large a croc would become if it had a much longer lifespan. We know people lived much longer then they do now. Why wouldn't animals live longer as well. People have a certain size that they reach at maturity, but many animals still grow larger as long as they keep living. I urge you to continue studying Old Earth as well as Young Earth Creationism. You may conclude after studying, that YEC is a better interpretation of the Bible and scientific evidence. I just ask that you are honest with yourself with the things you find. It has been a fascinating subject to me.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You're confusing Theistic Evolution, a very small subset of OEC with the whole. OEC encompasses a broader spectrum including progressive creationism. If you're interested in understanding better the different positions within the OEC spectrum, it shouldn't take very long on the main page to find multiple articles addressing that. Most people who are OEC and regular on this board hold to a position closer to Progressive Creationism, not Theistic Evolution. It's a very common misnomer applied by some in the YEC position to confuse and lump OEC into some form of evolutionism and it's simply not true and not representative of the positions espoused by most OEC proponents.

This is a position I haven't seen before. I mean no disrespect, but why believe this? I'm not trying to attack your belief, only to understand it. It is the same science that teaches evolution that also teaches the Earth was old. Why believe in the latter, but not the former? I've honestly read a bit around this site, and I've read some other Christian sources that talk of theistic evolution, but I've never seen arguments for progressive creationism. For example, on this site I found an interesting article that shows the Old Earth interpretation of Genesis, and it makes a lot of sense with science and theistic evolution (such as; plants before animals, sea animals before land animals, land animals before humans). I'm not a full YEC, it's just I'm considering more than I did, and I see the merits of theistic evolution.

Again, I'm not trying to attack the belief, I just simply don't get it. Why would it take God billions of years if He didn't use evolution to create us? Why believe all these other scientific theories about the age of the world, but reject evolution?

As to the points regarding dragons and cave art, the same traditions you mention would equally apply to mythical creatures such as sphinxes, minotaurs, satyrs etc.

Except mythical beings such as sphinxes, minotaurs, satyrs, etc. only appear in or two mythologies, most of them unique to Greek, and one or two such as sphinxes were borrowed from Egyptians. Dragons appear over and over in virtually every culture. And as for borrowed features, there's no other animal that even resembles the sauropod or the stegosarus, both of which appear in ancient artwork.

And as a matter of fact I don't believe it is true that the assertion that anytime figurative language is used it is an explicit simile is defendable. That's both a circle back to desired conclusion and an absolute assumption imposed upon the text rather than allowing the text, and the original intent of the human author (unless you subscribe to verbal dictation in which case the human author has no involvement at all in the writing and is just a scribe of sorts) and the original understanding of the original audience is drawn from the text itself, not a framework of assumptions that todays' modern reader brings to the text. Hebraic Poetic forms (Most of Job is written in the form of poetry) differ in several regards from English although there are parallels in places

I'm not saying everything in the Bible is literal unless made explicitly otherwise, that would be silly. I'm just saying, read Job 35-41. Figurative language isn't used to describe any of the other animals that God describes, unless made explicit.

Why would it take God billions of years if He didn't use evolution to create us?

Why would He take six days? He didn't *need* to do either, It's simply what He choose to do. Let's face it, He could have taken 6 milliseconds or no time at all.

Why believe all these other scientific theories about the age of the world, but reject evolution?

It's a matter of what science is true...we believe that there is ample evidence that we can conclude an old age but not evolution. Believing in evolution is not necessary for old age.

This is a position I haven't seen before. I mean no disrespect, but why believe this? I'm not trying to attack your belief, only to understand it. It is the same science that teaches evolution that also teaches the Earth was old. Why believe in the latter, but not the former? I've honestly read a bit around this site, and I've read some other Christian sources that talk of theistic evolution, but I've never seen arguments for progressive creationism. For example, on this site I found an interesting article that shows the Old Earth interpretation of Genesis, and it makes a lot of sense with science and theistic evolution (such as; plants before animals, sea animals before land animals, land animals before humans). I'm not a full YEC, it's just I'm considering more than I did, and I see the merits of theistic evolution.

Again, I'm not trying to attack the belief, I just simply don't get it. Why would it take God billions of years if He didn't use evolution to create us? Why believe all these other scientific theories about the age of the world, but reject evolution?

No sense of attack taken and I hope you'll not take it as an attack to answer your question directly and bluntly as well.

Respectfully, you're creating a false dilemma in the way you're framing your questions. You're assuming that evolution and YEC are the only two option and that OEC is in some form a compromise. Evolution as a science has only been around since Lamark and Darwin. OEC has been around as a legitimate and even a majority position in some times and places since even before the time of Christ. OEC is ultimately based as much in the text of the Bible as YEC. It is not, as is often accused, an attempt to "reconcile" the Bible to science. That in and of itself is a somewhat ridiculous claim. God as the author of Scripture and the creator wouldn't contradict Himself between the two. Now theology and science, which respectively are man's "interpretation" of the Bible (and God) and the natural world, may often come into conflict. That may be due to misinterpretations, misunderstandings or incomplete knowledge on either side (or both).

Most OECs don't claim that it took God billions of years to create us. OEC says the earth is older than the 6 - 10,000 years that YEC claims. OEC tends to believe that science is not mistaken in general in terms of the age of the earth. The Bible doesn't say how long things took in a literal sense. The Hebrew Word "Yom" used in the OT, as you may have read if you've looked at the articles can mean more than a 24 hour period of time. That period of time is undefined and it's even possible that those time frames are different and possibly even overlapping in places, although most OECs believe that the order is significant and actually a remarkably accurate insight into what science sees now in terms of order of appearance. There are even forms of OEC that believe that even though the earth is much older, man may have been created (as modern man in the image of God through a literal Adam) as recently as 50K to 100K years ago.

So respectfully, it's probably better to look at the articles or ask questions than to assume you know what all OECs believe. Quite honestly, that's a pet peeve of mine (and maybe some others here but I'll let them speak for themselves.) Many YECs don't dialogue (and I'm glad you are.) They set up strawman arguments claiming what OECs believe or characterizing all OECs as believing the same thing and it's quite common to assume that any understanding of an old physical earth requires evolution.

No disrespect, but I noted that you skipped over my response earlier that YECs actually in many cases have to rely more upon rapid evolution to explain the current state of speciation in the world, that do OECs. What does that say about YEC if any form of "evolution" is compromise or wrong?

In one sense, time when it comes to God is meaningless. God is outside of time and what basis is there on our part to say how long he "should" have taken to create anything? Some OECs in fact reconcile the differing time spans by seeing some form of relativity in the context of Quantum Mechanics that both assertions in terms of appearance can be both true at the same time.

Anyway, I hope that helps. We're not anti-YEC here although there are times when dialogue in certain threads over time can become quite vigorous. Most (not all) of the regulars here are more OEC and that's the position of the board sponsor Rich Deem. Respectful and constructive dialogue and principled disagreement is fine. Where it gets frustrating is when someone with a YEC position comes on loaded for bear as it were and makes claims and representations telling other people what to belief. I don't sense that you're trying to do that and I appreciate the measured and respectful questions. Just realize that you're making some assumptions and some projections here that aren't particularly accurate and to return to the first point, it doesn't follow that there's two and only two choices here and that anything that isn't YEC must be evolution. That's very sloppy and inaccurate thinking and not fair to the many OEC proponents who don't subscribe to evolution on the grander scale.

I hope that makes sense. Again, please don't read any tone into this beyond wanting to respect your questions and respond directly with some clear answers.

blessings,

bart

Well, there's nothing wrong with "reconciling" the Bible and science. They're not enemies.

Anyways, this is derailing off-topic completely, but I have another question. Is there a scriptural reason that you reject evolution, or do you just simply not like that theory? Evolution seems perfectly sound if you're going to accept that the Earth is billions of years old.

No disrespect, but I noted that you skipped over my response earlier that YECs actually in many cases have to rely more upon rapid evolution to explain the current state of speciation in the world, that do OECs. What does that say about YEC if any form of "evolution" is compromise or wrong?

Animals going back where they came from after the global flood wouldn't be evolution, just rapid migration. And I do confess that I have no idea just how the animals went to all their destinations after being held on the Ark. Even so, evolution is established as happening, that is known fact. We've observed it, and we've effectively synthesized it, both in labs and with animal breeding. Whether it is the origin of life and if we evolved from non-humans is what's up for grabs.

I reject evolution on a grand scale because I believe there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate the huge jumps and gaps between phylla, kingdoms etc that have to be presumed. I'm not however, anti-evolution in that sense that I don't think that given more evidence that I could conclude that God used evolution as a means. The evidence I see Scripturally indicates to me that God probably created at specific points and times. It doesn't necessarily give scientific methods.

That's actually where a lot of confusion comes into play with the word "evolution." As you note, as a scientific fact, evolution has been established and demonstrated on an observable scale. What makes evolution unpalatable for many on a larger scale is that with Darwin's introduction of natural selection it removed what many people had believed "proved" the existence of God because there was no other explanation possible. This is sometimes refered to, and other things like it, as the "God of the Gaps."

On a larger scale many Christians see the word "evolution" as a large scale philosophy that in the end must lead to a rejection of God. I don't go to that extent. I believe God's creative work and the means by which he accomplished it are two separate issues and I'm not threatened by evolution as a scientific theory when it stays in science. When it moves to evolution and becomes a solely materialistic basis for the rejection of God and all things spiritual then something very different is at work than science.

In terms of your response, I wasn't speaking of origin of life, but that degree and isolation of speciation that must have taken place if YEC and the Worldwide flood are accurate. I'm glad you recognize the extent to which evolution is established science and in that context it's not a threat to faith. It still is ironic to me however that many from the YEC position speak of evolution as if even on a short-term scientific basis it's not possible when their own position demands it on a more accelerated scale than has been observed than even current science posits.

Even so, evolution is established as happening, that is known fact. We've observed it, and we've effectively synthesized it, both in labs and with animal breeding.

This is something we need to be careful with. It is called the fallacy of equivocation. Words can and do have multiple meanings. When we substitute those meanings by using one definition of the word to try and 'prove' the other definition, we are committing such a fallacy.

This is the common example. "Of course evolution (particles to people) is true, we see evolution (change) happening all the time." In this case, one meaning of the word evolution is being used imporperly to prove the other definition. It is a very common problem, and one that we should not fall into.

Here is another example that makes it more obvious: The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.

it's a simple matter of defining terms and clarifying them.

I wish I could agree Zoe. If it is so simple then why is it so common?

For example. How evolution is being defined here?

Even so, evolution is established as happening.....

Evolution is established as happening on a micro or limited observed scale. It's common because terms like this are used loosely in general conversation and as you note, different meaning read into it. Another form of this is a category error.

Zoe's exactly right. The way to avoid the error is to simply identify terms, agree upon their meaning and usage when discussing the issue between two people and then use them as agreed upon.

The reason the error is common is because most conversations don't do that and when you're using terms like that you begin to speak past each other defining the word as it suits you or suits your argument.

Common errors are in fact, usually simple ones. There's nothing that says simple errors should be rarer in my opinion and observation. The fact that the solution to the problem is simple has no bearing on the application of the solution if the parties involved are neither aware of nor motivated to address it.

Agreed, Bart, there are various applications of the word evolution (micro, macro, philosophical, population genetics...). This confusion; however, is not somehow a useful argument against evolution, merely a reason to explain.

In terms of what you were asking, Jlay, it's simply observable that microevolution occurs. We can observe this. As defined, that evolution occurs with differential survival and reproduction, we can use that. We can argue over whether this will *lead* to large scale changes but as a simple definition of population changes/evolution, it's a pretty concrete definition and very testable.