Evidence for God from Science

I was having a discussion where I was arguing for OEC. YEC usually argue that God created the universe with the "appearance of age". This shows that even the YEC concedes that the universe really does look very old, at least in certain aspects (ie. distant stars). My reply to this is that the universe doesn't merely have "age" but also has "history". For example, if YEC is the case then God didn't just create the stars that are a billion light years away and merely stretch the light to us so that we can see them. He would have done even more than this. YEC might call this "stretched light" the appearance of "age". However, God would have given the stars a "history" as well in that some stars are dead, yet are still giving off such light. Thus God would have created the appearance of history as well and created stars that are dead, yet still giving off light!

My question is this: what proof do we have that stars are dead, yet are giving off light? Do light spectrums help us determine this, and how certain are we?

Thanks,

Cameron

I was having a discussion where I was arguing for OEC. YEC usually argue that God created the universe with the "appearance of age". This shows that even the YEC concedes that the universe really does look very old, at least in certain aspects (ie. distant stars). My reply to this is that the universe doesn't merely have "age" but also has "history". For example, if YEC is the case then God didn't just create the stars that are a billion light years away and merely stretch the light to us so that we can see them. He would have done even more than this. YEC might call this "stretched light" the appearance of "age". However, God would have given the stars a "history" as well in that some stars are dead, yet are still giving off such light. Thus God would have created the appearance of history as well and created stars that are dead, yet still giving off light!

My question is this: what proof do we have that stars are dead, yet are giving off light? Do light spectrums help us determine this, and how certain are we?

Thanks,

Cameron

The fact is simple, we understand space time with light. If the light is fake then the time is fake too, and ultimately our calculations are fake too as a consequence. And if that is the case then no one can travel in space, ever or build a rocket. It won't work. Since it does work and we know it does; the age theory is, well, simply nonsense.

solaphyde wrote:I was having a discussion where I was arguing for OEC. YEC usually argue that God created the universe with the "appearance of age". This shows that even the YEC concedes that the universe really does look very old, at least in certain aspects (ie. distant stars). My reply to this is that the universe doesn't merely have "age" but also has "history". For example, if YEC is the case then God didn't just create the stars that are a billion light years away and merely stretch the light to us so that we can see them. He would have done even more than this. YEC might call this "stretched light" the appearance of "age". However, God would have given the stars a "history" as well in that some stars are dead, yet are still giving off such light. Thus God would have created the appearance of history as well and created stars that are dead, yet still giving off light!

My question is this: what proof do we have that stars are dead, yet are giving off light? Do light spectrums help us determine this, and how certain are we?

Thanks,

Cameron

Hi Cameron,

Often we a born into a certain framework, a way of looking at the world--coloured by our parents, institutions, society and those around us as we grow.

Scofield was so influential in Evangelical Christianity, and many pastors were trained in seminaries that had adopted the Scofield Reference Bible which first appeared in 1909. James Ussher's calculation of the date of Creation as 4004 BC here received much discussion. It is my opinion that this is the reason why YEC is commonly held as being the Scriptural position by those who adhere to it. Whether this is true, or there is just heavy influence at play, is another question.

Today, we're living in a generation of Evangelical Christians who are perhaps witnessing to tail-end of Scofield's influence. Many have looked more carefully at God's special revelation (Scripture) inspired by God's natural revelation, or simply just out of a passion to read the Bible without being indoctrinated in some systematic theology. However, others are still under the influence and everything in them screams anything other than a Young Earth is anti-Biblical. That, is how indoctrination works.

That said, YEC could be right! Given the weight it's carried in Christianity over the past 100 or so years, it certainly shouldn't be quickly discarded. Yet, a personal investigation should be undertaken to weigh its merits.

So my advice to anyone exploring this issue, is to isolate all beliefs you've come to accept on creation. Try to create as blank a slate as you can without prejudicing yourself against one side or the other.

Create a spreadsheet. Copy all Scriptural references that many argue supports 6000 or so years, then add all Scriptural references that people argue support an old ancient Earth/universe.

Google will help you put together a list of both from great sites on both sides of the table. Don't worry about duplicates.

Then look at what both sides say about each of the passage. For each scriptural reference, make an informed judgement about which side seems to you most correct. Mark your decision with a short description why. Move onto the next piece of Scripture and again explore both sides and make a decision. Repeat until finished.

At the end of the day, I've found a lot of Scripture that I believe supports an old Earth/heavens and a scarcity that our universe is young -- even if I concede some in favour of a young earth.

By the end of this exercise, you'll have a spreadsheet based on Scripture and judgements made to the best of your knowledge.

Obviously your judgement can and will be influenced, but it's the best you've got. If anything, I think it'll be an eye-opener as to just what scant support a young earth has Scripturally.

But, I don't believe on this issue, that one needs to move even beyond Scripture. At least, I didn't. Do this, then many scientific questions that go against 6000 years may just become a non-issue.

Sorry, just looked at your profile a saw you had listed that you were Day-Age. In which case, hopefully someone else will benefit from my previous post.

YEC stands for Young Earth creationism. It says nothing about the rest of the universe. Many people who hold this view believe in a young universe because of what happened on the fourth day.

And 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, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
(Genesis 1:14-19 ESV)

They think this means the entire universe was created at this time and it is possible they are right. But this could also simply mean that atmospheric conditions were changed so that the sun, moon, and stars could now be seen in the sky. It says that lights appeared; it doesn't say that the bodies that were the source of those light were created at this time.

If we don't read the Bible carefully enough we can form misconceptions about what it actually says. This might help you understand better what the Bible says about creation and what it doesn't.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... lly-say-2/

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... ake-place/

However, God would have given the stars a "history" as well in that some stars are dead, yet are still giving off such light.

How do you know it's dead?
We are observing everything from a spec.
Now I am no astrophysicist, but I do know that science pretty well agrees on the big bang. Therefore the oldest event in the universe is everything originating at the same point.
It is said when we look deeper into space we see older events. Yet, how does that account for the older events happening closer together since the universe is in fact expanding with time? And the older you get the more compressed everything becomes. Is this not true for time as well?

i know there are some brilliant minds, and many claim to really have a grip on this, but I question how much we really know.
K,
I think that is a wretched idea. Men have already made a mess of scripture systematically to try and support all kinds of theological ideas. Now you suggest doing the same to try and defend cosmological ideas. No thank you.

Hmm, the purpose is to see what scripture actually says. Whether a list of verses in a spreadsheet is some systematic thing anymore than scribbling on a piece of paper...

Lets just ignore Scripture... Imagine if Luther just accepted what was passed onto him.

Yet, how does that account for the older events happening closer together since the universe is in fact expanding with time?

Because space time like a 3 dimensional grid (actually in theory it is 4 dimensional). The expansion is not at a consistent rate throughout history. Light as you know, the further it goes from the source, the more it scatters. But also remember that light is both wave and a particle. And that there is a lot of matter in the universe which affects light because of gravity.

Now, the expansion of the universe is happening, we know that but why is it happening? and what it really means?

consider a stick of gum and put four small objects on it, two objects on either ends, call them group L1 and group L2, mark their position and then stretch the gum. You will see that the distance between group L1 and L2 on either sides of the gum increased from each other but their location on the gum itself hasn't changed at all, it is the same. The whole gum has expanded.

The same way, the universe expanded, and the expansion which is happening now is because of inertia of the Bigbang. But there is matter in the universe and there is gravity present so the bodies which get closer together, bond with gravity and thus they remain at the same distance at which they bonded. It is simply that their space, like in the gum example, is being stretched but because of their gravitation bond they are not expanding away from each other.

Meaning L1 and L2 moved apart but the two bodies in L2 remained bonded to each other while expanding away from L1 altogether.

Bodies which gravitate towards each other are released from the inertia effect of the big bang therefore they stay with each other because of the gravity in between them. This is the precise reason why the Andromeda galaxy is not moving away but in fact moving towards the milky way galaxy, because of the gravitational force present.

There are a lot of other factors involved. I have oversimplified it but that is the basic thing.