Evidence for God from Science

Ok, so i was looking on Amazon and the author David Marshall was having an argument with an atheist, unfortunately, he was getting destroyed. The atheist said that the Bible goes against science and that it is a myth. this is the list of things he said were stated in the bible:

[size=85]Marshall, Do you really argue (as the other poster says) that science confirms the order of the appearance of life reported in Genesis? I guess it depends on how you interpret Genesis 1. If you don't interpret it the "Marshally" way, then questions abound. The order of creation in Genesis is PERFECT for an ancient Near Eastern deity. It even mirrors the order of creation in Enuma Elish, but it's wrong compared with modern science:

In the beginning vast waste of water. See also the epistle of Peter "out of water": wrong The Genesis story is the Big Splash I guess, rather than the Big Bang.

Primeval waters divided, and THEN the waters under the firmament are gathered into "one place" and the "dry land" appears and is named "earth": wrong. (Cosmology says the earth was a molten mass that hardened into a dry planet, and then the dry mass of the earth cooled to a point where water in the form of steam slowly condensed and it began to rain on the earth below. So dry land came first according to cosmology and it was covered by water from above, leaving no dry land at all in fact, not at first.

Light is created before all else according to Genesis 1. (wrong: According to cosmology the first photons of light evolved between 10 seconds and 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The Big Bang began in darkness so far as visible light is concerned.)

The first Light created had an evening and a morning and was declared the first day: wrong (According to cosmology the first light had no evening and morning at all, the first light existed long before our star arose and before our star had planets, let alone planets with evenings and mornings. The Genesis 1 story seems to be attempting to explain how "days" arose in a flat earth cosmos that consisted solely of the earth and all time being measured by its evenings and morning. How geocentric!)

Genesis 1 describes evenings and mornings (days/nights) existing before the first dry land appeared, when the earth was still watery and void: wrong (Days and nights would have happened as soon as the earth began to rotate which was well before the earth cooled down enough for water to form on its surface)

Dividing the waters with a firmament: wrong (This is ancient canopy cosmology that the Israelites adopted)

Creation of land and grass and plants and fruit trees a day before the sun was "made" and "set" "in the firmament," and before the seasons: wrong

Creation of fruit trees before the sun and moon were "made" and "set" "in the firmament" above the earth: wrong (The sun and moon "and the stars also" are far older than fruit trees)

Creation of fish and birds to fill the seas and the sky. A day later the creation of beasts of the earth: wrong (The appearance of life begins with cyanobacteria in the fossil record, and was dominated by single celled organisms for a couple billion years before multi-cellular organisms appeared. And even when they appeared the fish and birds do not show up contemporaneously with all the beasts of the field being created "later.")

All animals vegetarians: wrong[/size]

Was the atheist right?

here's the link if you want to read all of it:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1BXZK6EPZ ... hisHelpful

He has the order wrong, and does not see that it was written to PEOPLE, and thus written in a way people would know about.

First, "let there be light" is specified to be at sea level AS WE KNOW IT (that is what I mean by written to people), this is specified. One can also see it here Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness," Note how that shows the sea, a layer of cloud completly covering the earth, and thick darkness, all seen together and associated with each other. At this time, the earth is NOT "dry land" AS WE KNOW IT, it is liquid rock, magma. That is hardly dry land. When some of the volcanic ash and probably other gasses not in our atmosphere today cleared out, it would finally be just barely clear enough that you could tell day from night at the surface. Once you realise it was written TO PEOPLE, who do not associate the words "dry land" with liquid magma, you can start to see the light (so to speak:eugeek: ). Thus it is quite possible for there to be light, there just wasn't any VISIBLE light AT THE PLACE SPECIFIED which was Gen 1:2 "the surface of the deep", ie. sea level. Sure, there was light up there somewhare, but you wouldn't see it at the place specifically and intentionally specified.

"Cosmology says the earth was a molten mass that hardened into a dry planet, and then the dry mass of the earth cooled to a point where water in the form of steam slowly condensed and it began to rain on the earth below. So dry land came first according to cosmology and it was covered by water from above, leaving no dry land at all in fact, not at first." Right, notice that that means that all that water was up in the air, kinda like here Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness" Here we see the sea, the world completly covered in clouds, and thick darkness all associated together, exactly what cosmology says. That is also what Genesis says Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Note that the place specified is "the surface of the deep", so genesis and job agree that the water was up in the air, causing "thick darkness". We are talking a planet with ALL the ocean up in the air as clouds, you try that now and I think you can expect "thick darkness" as well. Throw in volcanic ashh and other gasses and we are talking pitch black, no matter what time of day it is, at the specified place, sea level. Once the ash and such settle some, it gets light enough to see some daylight, not much maybe, but some.

Then the waters above are seperated from that below Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." Basically, the planet cools enough for the water to rest on it's surface without vaporising, once agian, that is in accord with cosmology. At this sime the planets crust has not cooled enough to wrinkle and thus have dry land appearing out of all that water now on the surface, that happens here, after the above Gen 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. Yes, before that the planet was completly covered in water, first as thick clouds all up in the air, then as clouds and water on the surface. Either way, the entire surface was completly covered by the sea, even if at first the sea was in the form of a huge thick cloud in the air. Only after much of the sea is now liquid can we now have dry, non magma, land appear out from it when the crust cools and wrinkles.

The creation of plants (which method is not specified, and can thus be evolution or any other) is NOT stated to happen before the creation of the sun and moon. remeber from above, we have specidfied the context, sea level on earth. At this time, no plants yet, the atmospherew will not be like it is today. It would still have a lot of clouds, such that you would see no blue sky, plus no free oxygen, and probably a lot of methane that no life had converted yet to free nitrogen. Only AFTER that first life appears and is here for quite a while, changing the atmosphere, would we then have blue skies as we do now, and could SEE a sun and moon, as the NEXT verses say Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years".

Note also, Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass,", see what it says there, LET THE EARTH", it does NOT say God made plants, fully formed like modern plants, appear out of nothing, In fact, it SPECIFIES an EARTHLY method, a natural method, obeying natural laws, like, you know, evolution. it also does NOT spefify that this happened all at once, it says grass and trees like we know of because it is talking TO US, and we have never seen a world coverd with primitive one celled organisms, and thus wouldn't know what God is talking about if God specidfied a long involved process that most people throughout history would not understand, and which sciences is still grappling with today. Thus evolution is not only allowed, it is specified. The only problem with that is that there is a lot of evidence that evolution is statistically impossible (no one has come even close to making any in any test tubes), thus, for this to happen, a whole series of extremely improbable events must happen in one place at one time for life to arrive from non living matter. The bible specifies tha that is exactly what happened. Current science says that it is so improbable that for it to happen it would have to have been planned by a being of infinite intelligence (just like a universe that could support it is also comepletly improbable http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw ) , so we see a universe where one statistically impossible thing is then followed later by yet another http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap ... tein-1.php . Many people on these forums will disagree with the evolution thing, but Genesis still says "Let the Earth", so they can disagree all they want, they will just have to take it up with God, becasue thats what it SAYS.

Fish and birds DID come after this, the fist primitive life is included under the heading "grass", because plants did indeed come before animals of any kind, even if those plansts started out very very simple at first. Since we are, once again, talking TO PEOPLE, we will not say trilobites and dinosaurs, we will say what they have become now that we SEE them, fish and birds, so that is what is written. What would most people throughout history know of trilobites and dinosaurs anyway, they wouldn't even have a word for that!

I see nothing specifying that ALL animals are herbavores, however, ALL animals, even the carnivores, depends on plants for food, since plants are the food for the majority of animals of the earth, and if they couln't eat those plants, they would die and there would be nothing for the carnivores to eat. Plants are the basis of the food chain, without them, no food at all for anything.

The reason this David Marshall was getting destroyed is because he was ignorant, as are MANY, of science http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5357/1640.full . This includes many people on this forum, although a lot less of that is seen on the parent site http://www.godandscience.org/ ,although some is seen even there. If they would just read the bible AS WRITTEN, adding NOTHING to ONLY what it says the way it says it (as it itself specifdies repeatedly), and had a knowledge of science, especially what is and is not science ("scientists believe" is not science unless they can back it up with experimental evidence), then they could see what is clearly written, as seen here " Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Note this idea, if, as science says, there is a God, well, there may also be a Satan (not some guy in a red suit, another, though far lesser, extra dimentional being). If there is a Satan, that Satan, who also witnessed creation and can read Genesis and Romans as well as we can, may not want the truth of God "clearly seen". Thus, he may invent this whole idea of "the war of science agianst religion" to seperate out Christians from science, make them think that science is evil and wrong, stimulate them with pride that THEY are not like those "evil, godless evolutionists", and thus make them grow ever more ingorant about science, and reject out of hand any idea that science may back up the bible, despite this Rom 1:19 and this Rom 1:20 "clearly" and "plainly" stating the exact opposite. Of course, our poor public school system isn't helping any either. I mean, look at this quote "A recent National Science Foundation survey showed that less than half of American adults understand that the Earth orbits the sun yearly, only 21 percent can define DNA, and just 9 percent know what a molecule is. Another poll showed that one in seven American adults—roughly 25 million people—could not even locate the United States on an unlabeled world map. NASA administrator Dan Goldin cites a question he received while defending funding for the space agency: “Why are we building meteorological satellites when we have the Weather Channel?” I mean, thats IGNERT!

I hope your not that ignert. If you are not, read what is wrote above, see that it does specify that the actions taking place are specidfied from the point of view of sea level on earth, and from the point of view of people and what we can know of directly (like birds but not dinosaurs). Some people on this site will disagree. Use your own brain, decide for yourself, don't let ingorance of other people effect YOU.

BTW I also replied to your other post, mostly about whether the universe as it is shows evidnece of a God, the big bang showing any evidence for or against the idea of God, as well as other evidences. I like to work with evidence, you know, FACTS, rather than the currently fashionable idea of relying only on "faith". Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
However, what about things we DO SEE? In fact, the bible DOES talk about those things, here Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Clearly, we do NOT need to rely on "faith" to beleivve what we DO SEE, and the bible specifies that "since the creation of the world" (cosmology) it is "clearly seen", and today we DO clearly see it, using science. We therefore do not need to rely on faith to see that Genesis and cosmology are saying the same exact thing in the same exact order. All we need to do is read ONLY what the bible says (without adding anything, like God making plants from thin air or some such) and we can SEE this.

Or we can just close our eyes and ignore the entire universe and all this life all around us. You might hafta shut your eyes pretty tight though.

So the atheist was using 20th and 21st century science to argue about ancient literary writing?
Wow, that's awesome !
I am sure he will next point out how Shakespear doesn't know squat about science from his reading of Julius Caesar.
LOL !

your response was good, but i have a question, i appears that the bibl DOES state that plants came before the sun:

Day 3:
1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with seed in them, on the earth"; and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

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.
1:17 And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
1:18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

This should help, specifically the sections about the Universe and the one about plants.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-st ... -genesis-1

Why would god go through intense lenths to describe in detail how he created the universe and earth. The reason god gave his chosen word was to explain to the early jews how to live their lives in accordance with god.

If god did describe in detail how he created everything (as atheist demand) it would take up a book with pages equal to that of avagadros number

Murray wrote:Why would god go through intense lenths to describe in detail how he created the universe and earth. The reason god gave his chosen word was to explain to the early jews how to live their lives in accordance with god.

If god did describe in detail how he created everything (as atheist demand) it would take up a book with pages equal to that of avagadros number

The detail is actually quite adequate to see that what details are given are in accordence with what we know of cosmology. Thus, we can say that while it isn't great detail, it does say something that could not be known by ancient man (anyone before say 150 years ago tops), and thus we can see today, now that we know these things through science, that the bible is in agreement with science. It also says some things that are only known very recently, like the big bang. Thus the detail is adequate both for pre scientific man and post scientific. And the details being shown to be accurate by science shows that someone, in this case God, was a witness to these events, and then told them to Moses. We thus know that God exists because he was the only winess to these events which we see described accuratly here, and Moses could not have known these details. Thus, we cannot say that what Moses wrote was merely folklore or tales passed down from others, because when these events took place, there were no others. This is why Satan uses every excuse to make us ignore this, like "oh, it's just litarature or metaphore" (oddly accurate litarature, don't you think?), or this is a minor scientific quibble (which shows that there is a God and the God of the bible is it, hardly minor), or that we shouldn't "divide" over it (and thus not ever challenge the lie that is now taught to every school child "proving" that God does not exist), or science is evil/bad/wrong ( thus keeping Christians out of science, which leaves the field entirely to satans folk).

The sun after plants is simple as long as you remeber the general rule here that everything is described from the point of view of sea level on earth. Thus, the sun and moon were up there, but untill the first life had cleaned up the things like methane and ammonia and suchlike in the atmosphere, turning it into nitrogen (as well as free oxegen), the sun may be up there but you would never see it, as there would never be blue sky, just clouds. Also seen in Job, here Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness,". There you see clouds as a garment, which means a complete covering of clouds, so no blue sky, and no being able to see the sun and moon directly.

It's all there, you just have to read ALL of it, and with exact literalness, adding or subtracting nothing. In this case, what you are required to remember under that heading of ALL is Gen 1:2 "the surface of the deep", and how THAT is the context for all the rest of genesis 1. Really, the context is, this was written to people, who generally live only a smallish amount above sea level in most cases. Thus, it is written in a context that shows how all this effects people, how it makes the world livable for them step by step, in the places where most people live ( not underwater or on the tops of mountains). It is NOT written from the point of view of outer space, most people throughout history know nothing of space. Thus, by day/age 4, the sun became visible from the surface of the earth (as it is not on many other planets) from the point of view of where people live.

^

Note: I did not down play any of the statments which you mentioned on your post. I only said that if he explained extremly in detail the creation of the universe as atheists demand, that the bible would be fat with accounts on creation and not the moral and ethic codes that god wishes us to live by

Murray wrote:^

Note: I did not down play any of the statments which you mentioned on your post. I only said that if he explained extremly in detail the creation of the universe as atheists demand, that the bible would be fat with accounts on creation and not the moral and ethic codes that god wishes us to live by

And I agree with that, but you may be falling into a common trap designed to get you to ignore the details that ARE there. This goes with the usual phrase "oh, the bible should not be read as a science textbook". The idea is to get you to read ALL of it as only being about "moral and ethic codes", and to NOT notice that what details it DOES provide are accurate.

Now look here " Rom 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." See what it is saying? It says That EVIDENCE from the natural world "since the creation of the world" show Gods existance and qualities. Where does the bible talk about "the creation of the world", answer, Genesis. Therefore, for us to see that God is true, Genesis must track with science, and so it does. Satan sees the danger of this science stuff, people will actually LOOK at the evidences of this natural world, and then Rom 1:19 and Rom 1:20 will come into play, and people will "plainly" and "clearly" see evidence of God, and will be "without excuse". Satan has thus, for about the last 150 years, been running one of his most successful operations, designed to get the church away from noticing that the part of the bible that talks about "the creation of the world" is Genesis, and that that tracks exactly with science. You may say "oh, it's not in any great detail", but notice, the details given are ones that CANNOT have been known thosuands of years ago when this was written. In fact, only an eyewitness could know these details. An eyewitness of the big bang, planetery formation, the changes to our atmosephere and water cycle over billions of years of time, and the exact order of lifes appearence on this planet. Did Moses spend years studying fossils? Then how did he know what order life appeared? So, who WAS this witness? Was it the God of the bible? Since other religions do not have accurate creation accounts like this one, we are left ONLY with the God of ONLY the bible. In other words, we are left "without excuse". Do you think Satan wants that?

And what will Satan do about it? Will he, say, invent the idea of young earth creationism, designed to make Christianity look stupid and unscientific, and to corrupt Christian scientists into using dishonest science to back it up, thus getting Christians to get used to using dishonesty to "back up" their beliefs? And once they are used to being dishonest, what other kinds of errors does that allow you to slip in? Why, you can slip in all kinds of other small and almost unnoticable dishonesties, one after another, even into the minds of those who accept an old earth. And you can create a general distrust and rejection of science, both among the general population, and especially in the church, and a general feeling that "the bible is not science", and that one should never even imagine that it has any at all.

And this lie, "the bible is not a science textbook", which is really a disguise for the idea "the bible has no science in it all all" is just one of many lies about all this. There is also:

Its just "metaphore"- Odd, Genesis doesn't say it's metaphore, and parts of it track exactly with known science,and some archeology as well, rather odd for metaphore. And then there is that Genesis "metaphorical" figure Moses, actually appearing with Jesus Mat 17:3 , rather odd behavior for a "metaphore", don't you think? After all, Moses is in Genesis to, if you say part of it is "metaphore", and part is not, are you not simply deciding yourself which parts YOU want to call "mataphore" and which you do not? If you are going around calling anything you don't like in the bible "metaphore" so that you don't actually have to believe it, is that honest? If you just arbitrarily assign parts to "metaphore" and other parts as history, without the text stating or even hinting that it is metaphore (such as actually coming out and calling it a parable Mat 13:24 ) , what is to stop you from calling, oh, say Jesus death on a cross "metaphore" for, oh, say, "our need to die to ourseves" or some other meaningless slogan? And in fact, one can find self describes "bible experts" who do exactly that (despite the historical evidence). I have seen this taken to extremes as well, for instance, calling Adam "a kind of proto Israel" (huh?!?), despite Adam being listed as an actual physical anscestor of Jesus Luke 3:38 . Rather odd for somone to have a "metaphore" as their actual ancestor, don't you think? If one of your ancestors in your family tree where just a "metaphore", you wouldn't be here.

And "metaphore" is also used in other ways, my favorite being to call it "litarature" or "poetry" or some such. The Psalms are poetry, they say they are poetry (often for use in a song, stated as such), Genesis does NOT state that it is poetry, and it is not written in the style of jewish poetry. If you want to see that it is not poetry, try reading it in other than the King James version, not so "poetical" now, is it? If it doesn't look like a duck, or quack like a duck, its NOT a duck. And what does 'litarature" really mean, if you are honest (with yourself as well as others), what you are really saying is you are calling it FICTION. In other words, you are calling it a lie, maybe an entertaining lie, but a lie none the less, that is what "litarature" IS. So you just called Gods word a lie, where does that leave you? if you are going to call God word a lie, be honest, just come out and say so. Don't use weasel words like "literature", when we all know what you really mean.

And then there is the old "we shouldn't divide over this", and we should have "unity". Well, what things should we have unity over, and what not, should we have "unity" no matter what? Should we have "unity" with the Spanish Inquisition"? After all, they called themselves Christian to, why not? What about "unity" with the old pre protestant idea, and never come up with this idea Rom 1:17 "The righteous will live by faith.". Yes, lets go back to selling indulgences, we wouldn't want to "divide" over this, would we? Mat 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Mat 10:35 For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
Mat 10:36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' But hey, that was just Jesus, who listens to HIM anymore, we are so far beyond that now!

And then there is that 'this is just a minor, scientific quibble". Right, trivial, except it is now taught to every schoolchild that science and religion are incompatable, that the bible is merely myth and fable. Thus, they are taught to believe that if they want to believe in God, they must give up a belief in science, in other words, they must check their brain at the church door, they must give up any idea of scientific rationality or reason. Ok, the bible actually says this " 1 Pet 3:15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.", but, of course, you are far beyond that old fashioned "reason" stuff. No, we should just let Satan keep this lie, and never challenge it, certainly NEVER with anything like this Rom 1:19 or this Rom 1:20 , maybe we can find people who dropped out of school so early that they never heard the lie, and thus do not believe, as most everyone is taught now, that the bible is just fable, myth, and theres those words again, "metaphore" or "literature". In fact, this now all pervasive LIE (as, once agian, seen as such here Rom 1:19 and here Rom 1:20 ) is the single greatest impediment to the Christian witness there is. As such, this Rom 1:20 is as of great importance now as this Rom 1:17 "The righteous will live by faith." was for the Great Reformation. As such, it is the preeminent issue of our age. Unless, of course, YOU don't care if people go to hell, for like, forever. I mean, thats just a minor, trivial consideration, right? I mean, its not like Jesus thought they were important enough to DIE for, is it?

And then there is "well, we don't need to go into all that, the Spirit will convince them". So, I guess this 1 Pet 3:15 doesn't really MEAN what it says, right? Neither does this " 2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth." No, that stuff is soooo old fashioned! Since every child in school is now taught that reason dictates that the bible is merely fable and myth, why, the Spirit will just have to convince them based, I guess, on pure feelings? Lets all get together and sing "feeeeelings, nothing more than feeeelings". In fact, why even use that old word of God stuff at all, why, lets let the spirit do it all! Man, this Christianity stuff is so much easier now that we have given up all that old great commision stuff and let the Spirit do it all! And we can certainly ignore stuff like this 1 Cor 12:28 , I mean, teachers, what do we need teachers for, we are SO past all that stuff. I mean, the spirit would NEVER actually raise people up to call a lie of Satan a lie, would he? In fact, why even go to church and listen to that boring old pastor anyway, you don't need that stuff, the Spirit will just give you the right "feelings" when you need them, right? And that bible thing, I mean, reading is hard! Whenever you get the urge to know what the bible says, either by studying it or by going and listening to someone who has been raised up by God to do so for you, why, just stay home and sing anothere round of "feeeeelings".

And where have I seen these lies of Satan, only on YEC sites? No, I have seen them ALL IN THIS FORUM RIGHT HERE. Any idea that the bible might track exactly with science is immediatly attacked, usually by people who call themselves "good Christians".

In short, just ask yourself the question :how did Moses know that", the answer may suprise you.