Evidence for God from Science

The Bible tells us that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago. The creation took six days.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Genesis 1:3-5 ESV

Each day consisted of an evening and a morning and had a period of light and one of darkness. Those who believe the earth is old correctly point out the the word “day” can mean a long period of time but the description of the creation days makes it clear they were literal days.

Most people believe that science has proved that the earth is much older than the Bible says it is. The problem with this belief is that the research supporting this belief begins by assuming that God has never intervened in the natural processes that are at work. This assumption leads to a false interpretation of the data. I have written about this here:

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... t-science/

There is one question that needs to be answered.

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

Many stars are so far away it takes the light from them millions and even billions of years to reach earth. How can we see them if they were created only a few thousand years ago?

If you read the Bible account carefully you will see that it says that God placed lights in the sky, not that he created the bodies that were the source of those lights. There were three days and three nights before this. That proves that the sun already existed. We have all experienced times when the sky was covered with clouds that kept us from seeing the sun but still allowed light to reach the ground. A condition like this must have existed during the first three days of the earth’s creation. On the fourth day the cloud cover was removed so the sun, moon, and stars could be seen.

The heavens are the LORD’s heavens,
but the earth he has given to the children of man.
Psalm 115:16 ESV

Since the earth is the only part of creation that has been given to us it is reasonable that it is the only part whose creation is described.

The universe is much older than the earth but there is evidence that it isn’t as old as most people believe. You can find some of that evidence in the January 2011 issue of Answers Magazine. You can read the magazine online here.

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/magazine/v6-n1/

The universe didn’t begin with the Big Bang; it was created by God. He just hasn’t revealed to us when or how he created it.

The age of the earth and the age of the universe are two separate subjects. Belief in a young earth and a young universe creates the problem of how we can see distant stars. Belief in an old earth and an old universe contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible. Belief in a young earth and an old universe presents no Biblical or scientific difficulties.

Just to be clear, you believe that the dating we have of things over 6000 years old is not valid? that all those methods are wrong?

Theo wrote-

The age of the earth and the age of the universe are two separate subjects. Belief in a young earth and a young universe creates the problem of how we can see distant stars. Belief in an old earth and an old universe contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible. Belief in a young earth and an old universe presents no Biblical or scientific difficulties.

Yes and no.

Young earth is Biblical, old earth is not, young universe is possible and old universe more likely.

God had countless angels before the creation of the earth, so many that they cannot be numbered. If the Bible states that then it is true.
Other things are called countless like the stars or the sand of the sea.

Angels are servants for God for His creation. That number of angels suggests other worlds as does Hebrews 11:3 KJV.

But when it comes to time and our perception of it, there is a high possibility that we do not know how it works, or how it may change in different circumstances. Our ideas of time are such that when we write books on it we put a picture of a clock on the cover - showing that we have no clue, and know nothing more than the clock does.

PaulSacramento wrote:Just to be clear, you believe that the dating we have of things over 6000 years old is not valid? that all those methods are wrong?

There is nothing wrong with the dating methods. In order to interpret the results you need historical as well as scientific information. You need to know whether the natural processes we see taking place have always gone on or whether God has acted in ways that would affect them.

One example of this is radiometric dating. We know that radioactive elements break down into other elements. If we know how much uranium exists and how much lead exists and we also know the rate at which uranium turns into lead we can calculate how long it would have taken the lead to form by the process of radioactive decay. But to use this as a way of measuring the age of the earth we must know the answer to a historical question: Did God create the earth or did it come into existence entirely by natural processes. If the Bible's account of creation some of the lead that exists was part of the original creation and wasn't the product of radioactive decay. Unless we know how much of the lead was created we can't use radiometric dating to measure the age of the earth.

Science is an excellent tool for studying what is happening now and what present conditions are but when you begin to study the past you need historical information as well. Any scientific study that is based on incorrect historical assumptions will lead to incorrect results. I have posted a previous thread about this subject.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =7&t=39254

Also please read this websites articles on this subject aw well...

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

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

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

Thank You...

Let us be reminded that Ken Ham indeed makes one's very salvation and all salvation based upon believing in YEC alone. He mentions this repeatedly during his TV show - Answers in Genesis.

However the bible plainly states that salvation comes by believing in Jesus alone for salvation.

With that, Mr Ham fits the divisive category mentioned in 1 Co 3:3 with that, you can decide. In my opinion based upon the bible, the age of the earth is not necessary for salvation in any regard. It is something that can be discussed in a civil manner and Christians can agree to disagree with civility and respect on such a matter. Let's not go in the way of strife. Ken Ham gins up strife and the apple does not fall far the tree as they say... so for everyone please keep it civil.
-
-
-

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Just to be clear, you believe that the dating we have of things over 6000 years old is not valid? that all those methods are wrong?

There is nothing wrong with the dating methods. In order to interpret the results you need historical as well as scientific information. You need to know whether the natural processes we see taking place have always gone on or whether God has acted in ways that would affect them.

One example of this is radiometric dating. We know that radioactive elements break down into other elements. If we know how much uranium exists and how much lead exists and we also know the rate at which uranium turns into lead we can calculate how long it would have taken the lead to form by the process of radioactive decay. But to use this as a way of measuring the age of the earth we must know the answer to a historical question: Did God create the earth or did it come into existence entirely by natural processes. If the Bible's account of creation some of the lead that exists was part of the original creation and wasn't the product of radioactive decay. Unless we know how much of the lead was created we can't use radiometric dating to measure the age of the earth.

Science is an excellent tool for studying what is happening now and what present conditions are but when you begin to study the past you need historical information as well. Any scientific study that is based on incorrect historical assumptions will lead to incorrect results. I have posted a previous thread about this subject.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =7&t=39254

Lots of "if's" there...

It seems to me that IF we trust the various dating methods for other dates in history ( which we do) and these methods are not stand alone ( more than one method is used) then to suggest that they MAY be wrong because of "if" this or "if" that when we have no evidence of any of these "ifs" being the case, then we are simply making stuff up and if we are doing that to "save" OUR INTERPRETATION of the bible then we are doing the Word of God a disservice.

B. W. wrote:Let us be reminded that Ken Ham indeed makes one's very salvation and all salvation based upon believing in YEC alone. He mentions this repeatedly during his TV show - Answers in Genesis.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement or are you simply repeating what you have been told by others? Here is what Ken Ham says on this subject:

Can a person believe in an old earth and an old universe (millions or billions of years in age) and be a Christian?

NOT ONE PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE STATES IN ANY WAY THAT A PERSON HAS TO BELIEVE IN A YOUNG EARTH OR UNIVERSE TO BE SAVED. First of all, let’s consider three verses that sum up the gospel and salvation. 1 Corinthians 15:17 says, “If Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” Jesus said in John 3:3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Romans 10:9 clearly explains, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Numerous other passages could be cited but not one of them states in any way that a person has to believe in a young earth or universe to be saved.

And the list of those who cannot enter God’s kingdom, as recorded in passages like Revelation 21:8, certainly does not include “old earthers.”

Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth. Some of these explained away the Bible’s clear teaching about a young earth by adopting the classic gap theory. Others accepted a day-age theory or positions such as theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation.

Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe.

Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes concerning the supposed millions of years age for the earth and universe.

Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences. Let me summarize some of these.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ung-earth/

By the way, Answers in Genesis is a web site, not a TV show. Perhaps if you had spent some time there finding out what Ham really believes you wouldn't be guilty of slandering a servant of God.

Theophilus wrote:
Science is an excellent tool for studying what is happening now and what present conditions are but when you begin to study the past you need historical information as well. Any scientific study that is based on incorrect historical assumptions will lead to incorrect results. I have posted a previous thread about this subject.

So, astronomers and astrophysicists aren't scientists?

Astronomy and astrophysics is almost exclusively the study of the past.

B. W. wrote:
Let us be reminded that Ken Ham indeed makes one's very salvation and all salvation based upon believing in YEC alone. He mentions this repeatedly during his TV show - Answers in Genesis.

However the bible plainly states that salvation comes by believing in Jesus alone for salvation.

With that, Mr Ham fits the divisive category mentioned in 1 Co 3:3 with that, you can decide. In my opinion based upon the bible, the age of the earth is not necessary for salvation in any regard. It is something that can be discussed in a civil manner and Christians can agree to disagree with civility and respect on such a matter. Let's not go in the way of strife. Ken Ham gins up strife and the apple does not fall far the tree as they say... so for everyone please keep it civil.

Bryan,

That's not accurate. While ham is extremely dogmatic about YEC, it's not a salvation issue for him, necessarily.

He has said sincere Christians can be wrong while believing in an old earth, but still be saved.

RickD wrote:

B. W. wrote:
Let us be reminded that Ken Ham indeed makes one's very salvation and all salvation based upon believing in YEC alone. He mentions this repeatedly during his TV show - Answers in Genesis.

However the bible plainly states that salvation comes by believing in Jesus alone for salvation.

With that, Mr Ham fits the divisive category mentioned in 1 Co 3:3 with that, you can decide. In my opinion based upon the bible, the age of the earth is not necessary for salvation in any regard. It is something that can be discussed in a civil manner and Christians can agree to disagree with civility and respect on such a matter. Let's not go in the way of strife. Ken Ham gins up strife and the apple does not fall far the tree as they say... so for everyone please keep it civil.

Bryan,

That's not accurate. While ham is extremely dogmatic about YEC, it's not a salvation issue for him, necessarily.

He has said sincere Christians can be wrong while believing in an old earth, but still be saved.

Well, I am wrong then on that and should have rephrased it as an Authority Issues for Ken Ham, in other words, if you do not agree with YEC then a door of compromise is open and all biblical authority is lost and so Pro 30:6 fits anyone who is not YEC.

His view of YEC blatantly divisive and accusing anyone Christian who disagrees with his YEC is a lair, promoting compromise, destroying the church. I suggest the logical contradiction of his own YEC view point many...

Many great men of God who are now with the Lord have believed in an old earth. Some of these explained away the Bible’s clear teaching about a young earth by adopting the classic gap theory. Others accepted a day-age theory or positions such as theistic evolution, the framework hypothesis, and progressive creation.

Scripture plainly teaches that salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, with no requirement for what one believes about the age of the earth or universe. https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ung-earth/

Then goes into the contradiction here...

Now when I say this, people sometimes assume then that it does not matter what a Christian believes concerning the supposed millions of years age for the earth and universe.

Even though it is not a salvation issue, the belief that earth history spans millions of years has very severe consequences.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ung-earth/

These severe consequences are summed up by Ham as...

Authority Issue

The belief in millions of years does not come from Scripture, but from the fallible methods that secularists use to date the universe.

To attempt to “fit” millions of years into the Bible, you have to invent a gap of time that almost all Bible scholars agree the text does not allow—at least from a hermeneutical perspective. Or you have to reinterpret the “days” of creation as long periods of time (even though they are obviously ordinary days in the context of Genesis 1). In other words, you have to add a concept (millions of years) from outside Scripture, into God’s Word. This approach puts man’s fallible ideas in authority over God’s Word.

As soon as you surrender the Bible’s authority in one area, you “unlock a door” to do the same thing in other areas. Once the door of compromise is open, even if ajar just a little, subsequent generations push the door open wider. Ultimately, this compromise has been a major contributing factor in the loss of biblical authority in our Western world.

The church should heed the warning of Proverbs 30:6, “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ung-earth/

That is downright insulting, inflammatory and wrong and presents a round about way saying, it does matters concerning salvation because after all, no lairs in heaven...

Basically Ham is using t Good cop bad cop sales pitch in promoting YEC with him being the Good Cop and OEC the bad Cop who is guilty of stripping God's authority form the bible, all done so he can win a debate, is well, disingenuous.

So if you all really want to debate Ham's position then it must be proved OEC are lairs deliberating planning to strip away God's authority in the bible, and have a planned mechanism, minute meetings, and such proving this, not hearsay evidence from secularist stating that OEC caused that... Then prove it, prove that OEC are lairs, who are plotting to strip biblical authority naked. Instead, OEC actually defend God's authority and the authority and integrity of the bible, not decrease it.

That is what I find distasteful in Ham's antics and tactics. OEC is not rebellion against God as Ham portends it to be...

There said my piece - and to me Ham says one thing about salvation but in the same breath appears to say the opposite of what he says.

If one truly believes in YEC , OEC, or even the GAP Therory, so be it, it matters not as none of these views strips God of authority making those that disagree Lairs...

All these views, we can agree to disagree on, but calling by insinuation that those that do not hold your point of view a Lair... well is pure boxing...
-
-
-

Ham's view is typical of those that base their faith strictly on THEIR interpretation of the bible.
Their reasoning is as follows:
The bible is inerrant and the true word of God.
The bible is what I place my faith in because it is the word of God.
IMO, Genesis means this.
If Genesis doesn't mean what I think it means then that means Genesis is wrong and the bible has errors and is not the word of God.
If the bible is not the word of God I have nothing to place my faith in.

Barth Ehrman became an agnostic via this line of reasoning BTW.


See, the issue is NOT what Genesis says, it is what WE THINK it MEANS.

PaulSacramento wrote:See, the issue is NOT what Genesis says, it is what WE THINK it MEANS.

There are rules of language or grammar in English. The Bible should be read as it appears in English.

Ham reads English.

Evolution, gap theory, OEC are not in the Bible. I have never read - one day means any amount of time, day and night means eons of time, evening and morning means blah.

If we cannot accept the plain text, then we ought to have doubts about whether God knew what He was doing in preserving an original version of the scriptures until our day.

Doubt erodes faith. "whatsoever is not of faith is sin" "Without faith it is impossible to please God" does not include falsehood.

So yes, the issue is not Genesis but the sin of thinking of something that is not written in there.

While I wanted to be clear that Ham says creation beliefs aren't a salvation issue, I also want to show what he says "on the other hand":

Ken Ham wrote:
By dying on a cross and being raised from the dead, Jesus conquered death and paid the penalty for sin. Although millions of years of death before sin is not a salvation issue per se, I personally believe that it is really an attack on Jesus’ work on the cross.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationis ... ung-earth/

So, on one hand, Ham says it's not a salvation issue. And on the other hand, believing in millions of years, is an attack on Jesus' work on the cross. The very same work, which having a belief in, is necessary for salvation.

So which is it Mr. Ham?

RickD wrote:While I wanted to be clear that Ham says creation beliefs aren't a salvation issue, I also want to show what he says "on the other hand":
...
So, on one hand, Ham says it's not a salvation issue. And on the other hand, believing in millions of years, is an attack on Jesus' work on the cross. The very same work, which having a belief in, is necessary for salvation.

So which is it Mr. Ham?

It is not a case of which is it, because it is both, it is a Q of when is it an issue.
It is not an issue when accepting Christ, but after it becomes an issue when the saved is confronted with the lies of evolution. One cannot be a Christian or claim to be converted if they hold on to lies and false doctrine, which includes the lies of Satan through "science so falsely called."

The acceptance of evolution, false science, OEC, gap theory etc, is a political strategy to keep members in the church.

The cause of this tolerance comes from ignorant church goers drinking ignorant science.

The many who have been deceived by these false doctrines are not necessarily lost because of them, but those who were spiritually indolent enough allow these teachings to fall into the church are to blame, and they will certainly not be saved while continuing in that path.

God is Intelligent, and He does not like the company of the faithless.

1 Timothy 6:20. KJV only.

Starhunter wrote:

RickD wrote:While I wanted to be clear that Ham says creation beliefs aren't a salvation issue, I also want to show what he says "on the other hand":
...
So, on one hand, Ham says it's not a salvation issue. And on the other hand, believing in millions of years, is an attack on Jesus' work on the cross. The very same work, which having a belief in, is necessary for salvation.

So which is it Mr. Ham?

It is not a case of which is it, because it is both, it is a Q of when is it an issue.
It is not an issue when accepting Christ, but after it becomes an issue when the saved is confronted with the lies of evolution. One cannot be a Christian or claim to be converted if they hold on to lies and false doctrine, which includes the lies of Satan through "science so falsely called."

The acceptance of evolution, false science, OEC, gap theory etc, is a political strategy to keep members in the church.

The cause of this tolerance comes from ignorant church goers drinking ignorant science.

The many who have been deceived by these false doctrines are not necessarily lost because of them, but those who were spiritually indolent enough allow these teachings to fall into the church are to blame, and they will certainly not be saved while continuing in that path.

God is Intelligent, and He does not like the company of the faithless.

1 Timothy 6:20. KJV only.

Starhunter,

Since you're fairly new here, I'm going to let this one slide. Questioning someone's salvation because their creation views don't agree with yours, is grounds for banning. This is your only warning. This will not be tolerated.

If you believe Christians can lose their salvation because of their creation beliefs, or because they believe in a false teaching, you have an extremely wrong and dangerous idea of salvation. Salvation is by God's Grace, through faith in Christ. Period. Anything else is something added to the gospel that isn't there.