Evidence for God from Science

Here a seminary professor details the idea that Genesis is not talking about the "science" of things, but had another, more important purpose. Yes, the ancient audience it is directed to, its context and understandings, are all keys to understanding what mere word studies cannot properly illuminate.

This goes over much of what Johnny Miller wrote in his book, "In the Beginning We Misunderstood."

http://www.kevinstilley.com/wp-content/ ... -Myths.pdf

What if?
8 people get off the ark at the conclusion of Noah's flood.
Then all people become confused and begin to speak different languages at the tower of Babel and consequently disperse all over the world.

As people become separated and spread out and begin to multiply. How well would we expect stories and truths to be preserved and passed on with accuracy. It would of course depend on the initial prior knowledge possess'd by any particular group or individuals who settled together.

Almost all cultures around the world tell myths and stories of Creation and Floods. Many similarities can be drawn from comparisons.

Another common theme is beings from the stars coming to earth and sharing knowledge with man. The Bible also speaks of such an event.

Are these similarities coincidental... copied? Or are they rooted in truth, simply distorted by time, circumstance and retelling?

Another common theme is beings from the stars coming to earth and sharing knowledge with man. The Bible also speaks of such an event.

Uh, no. Here's a Christian scholar who has thoroughly debunked the ancient astronaut nonsense: http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/mike-heiser/

Sorry but I reject anybody who wants to tell us the bible cannot be trusted.Man has been wrong so many times in the past that it is foolish to just let man have his way on what is true and what is not true.

It makes no difference whether they were Christian or not,man has been wrong many times throughout history,and so it is not wise to say man is right this time.This man is teaching that because man has it right now,we must reinterpret our bible to line up with it. I don't like it,the problem is us,not God's word as we don't always interpret it right but in the end it is the truth and will be proven true whether man thinks so or not.

Atheists use this Egyptian non-sense for atheist talking points but Satan copies and counters everything God does as there were false messiah's before Jesus Christ.Besides I think this only effects the Young earth creationism interpretation of Genesis not what I believe the Gap theory.Did the Egyptians believe a former world full of life was on this earth that perished before God created this world?We have forensic scientific evidence all around this earth that proves it, don't look at it from an evolution perspective but from a perspective of looking for evidence for a former world full of life that perished and we have all kinds of evidence in the layers of strata with fossils,coal and oil that proves it.Man has been looking at the evidence all wrong thinking life evolves when it doesn't.The evidence proves the bible true and proves man's interpretations wrong again.

I said nothing of, nor do I buy into the Ancient Astronaut theory. I'm saying that the reality of the Biblical account of fallen angels may explain many ancient beliefs (although distorted) regarding beings from the heavens and false Gods, along with their counterfeit creation accounts.

tjdagger wrote:I said nothing of, nor do I buy into the Ancient Astronaut theory. I'm saying that the reality of the Biblical account of fallen angels may explain many ancient beliefs (although distorted) regarding beings from the heavens and false Gods, along with their counterfeit creation accounts.

I was specifically talking about the article not what you said.I don't buy into Ancient Astronaut theory either however I have found all kinds of evidence that actually proves and gives even more evidence for a former world by watching their Ancient Alien TV show.This evidence proves that unlike what Evolution has taught us that the first man was dumb out of Africa,the evidence shows evidence for ancient civilizations that were highly advanced societies and this evidence is all around this earth and this is the kind of evidence we should find if a former world full of life existed that perished before this world was created by God add in the fossils,coal and oil too. What more evidence do we need?

This evidence proves that unlike what Evolution has taught us that the first man was dumb out of Africa,the evidence shows evidence for ancient civilizations that were highly advanced societies and this evidence is all around this earth

We do have evidence of a number of highly organized and culturally advanced human civilizations that existed long before the Bible or other ancient texts were written. How exactly does this tie into evolution? Our understanding of human evolution suggests that, yes, humans as we know them originated in Africa and later spread throughout the world. These ancient civilizations were formed thousands upon thousands of years after humans left Africa, not immediately after human-like animals first evolved.

And I would debate the term "highly advanced." I do think we haven't given enough credit sometimes when it comes to ancient civilizations. Their cultures were extremely intricate and many had very advanced agricultural knowledge and tools. Their understandings of astronomy, weather patterns, and basic mathematics and engineering were also much better than many people would expect. But beyond that, it isn't like tens of thousands of years ago there were humans who had mastered what we consider modern technologies or anything like that.

this is the kind of evidence we should find if a former world full of life existed that perished before this world was created by God add in the fossils,coal and oil too. What more evidence do we need?

Fossils and coal and oil are, frankly, great evidence for an extremely ancient Earth, and an extremely long history of life on Earth as well. But how do you use that to further your case for some kind of "pre-Earth" that existed long before our modern form of Earth did? None of what you say here is evidence for a former world any more than it is evidence for any other kind of theology or worldview. Frankly, our discoveries of ancient human cultures show how closely related our modern day societies are to those ancient ones and show a clear, linear progression from the most ancient civilizations to our own today. There isn't a disconnect between ancient culture and our own, not at all.

To abelcainsbrother ,

I take it you do not consider Noah' Floods as an explanation to the evidences you speak of?

To Ivellious,

Fossils and coal and oil are, frankly, great evidence for an extremely ancient Earth, and an extremely long history of life on Earth as well.

What of man creating oil from organic matter in minuets, using pressure heat and water?

What of soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils?

What of diamonds being created in the lab under conditions believed to be happening in the earth, but only taking months to grow?

...just to name a few...

How exactly do the above support a long age earth?

As for dating methods....

I am not an expert but from what I understand, radioactive decay involves obtaining the known half-life of an unstable radioactive element. Often transmutation occurs with the exchange of energy and atoms… effectively a chemical reaction.
Despite known problems and assumptions with dating methods, test are usually performed to confirm suspected dates. When dates match predictions, methods are heralded as accurate and reliable. When they don’t fit the assumed age then contamination and other factors are said to come into play.

A problem exists when the assumption is, that half life’s are calculated as constant and yet we are taught that a chemical reaction cane be slowed or speed up by changing the heat, concentration, pressure affecting surface contact, or the presence of a catalyst.

In a biblical world view we have a global flood, enduring droughts, fire and brimstone from the heavens, changing weather patterns, volcanic eruptions and the dividing of the earth.

In a Scientific world view we see deep time, an ever changing environment, magnetic pole shifts, many ice ages, meteor impacts, vast localized flooding, global volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions.

Both pose problems for accurate reliable dating results.

Many times known ages (eye witness accounts) for recent rock formations have been tested and shown dates grossly over the known age. If known dates cannot be accurately obtained, why should any dates obtained be trusted?

tjdagger wrote:I said nothing of, nor do I buy into the Ancient Astronaut theory. I'm saying that the reality of the Biblical account of fallen angels may explain many ancient beliefs (although distorted) regarding beings from the heavens and false Gods, along with their counterfeit creation accounts.

Yes, this view is actually a very biblical one, one that I agree with also.
There are passages that allude to that in Pslams, Daniel and so forth.
Nations that were give to the sons of God for "safekeeping" and that some of them ( the sons of God/angels/princes like the prince of Persia in Daniel) decided to pass themselves off as gods and what not.

Philip wrote:Here a seminary professor details the idea that Genesis is not talking about the "science" of things, but had another, more important purpose. Yes, the ancient audience it is directed to, its context and understandings, are all keys to understanding what mere word studies cannot properly illuminate.

This goes over much of what Johnny Miller wrote in his book, "In the Beginning We Misunderstood."

http://www.kevinstilley.com/wp-content/ ... -Myths.pdf

I agree of course because there is no reason to believe that the writer(s) of Genesis had science in mind when it was written.
It was a theological and Historical account of/for the Hebrew people.
It was written TO the people of that time, BY the people of that time WITH the language and imagery of that time that the audience would understand.

Ivellious wrote:

This evidence proves that unlike what Evolution has taught us that the first man was dumb out of Africa,the evidence shows evidence for ancient civilizations that were highly advanced societies and this evidence is all around this earth

We do have evidence of a number of highly organized and culturally advanced human civilizations that existed long before the Bible or other ancient texts were written. How exactly does this tie into evolution? Our understanding of human evolution suggests that, yes, humans as we know them originated in Africa and later spread throughout the world. These ancient civilizations were formed thousands upon thousands of years after humans left Africa, not immediately after human-like animals first evolved.

And I would debate the term "highly advanced." I do think we haven't given enough credit sometimes when it comes to ancient civilizations. Their cultures were extremely intricate and many had very advanced agricultural knowledge and tools. Their understandings of astronomy, weather patterns, and basic mathematics and engineering were also much better than many people would expect. But beyond that, it isn't like tens of thousands of years ago there were humans who had mastered what we consider modern technologies or anything like that.

this is the kind of evidence we should find if a former world full of life existed that perished before this world was created by God add in the fossils,coal and oil too. What more evidence do we need?

Fossils and coal and oil are, frankly, great evidence for an extremely ancient Earth, and an extremely long history of life on Earth as well. But how do you use that to further your case for some kind of "pre-Earth" that existed long before our modern form of Earth did? None of what you say here is evidence for a former world any more than it is evidence for any other kind of theology or worldview. Frankly, our discoveries of ancient human cultures show how closely related our modern day societies are to those ancient ones and show a clear, linear progression from the most ancient civilizations to our own today. There isn't a disconnect between ancient culture and our own, not at all.

The evidence of fossils,coal and oil and these ancient mysterious cities/structures and societies we find all around this earth have been looked at from an evolution perspective not a former world that existed that perished perspective.And I am not saying some pre-earth existed long before our modern form of earth did.I'm saying that this earth was formed long ago long and that a former world existed on this earth after it was created,the former world was full of life until it perished,then there was a gap of time until God created this world we now live in on the same earth.The earth was restored so that it could once again sustain life and then this world was created this is what we read about in Genesis 1 the earth being restored and this world being created on it.This is why we find the evidence for a former world on this earth.Like I said don't look at the evidence from an evolution perspective instead think of a former world perspective instead.You can choose to believe man or God.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Philip wrote:Here a seminary professor details the idea that Genesis is not talking about the "science" of things, but had another, more important purpose. Yes, the ancient audience it is directed to, its context and understandings, are all keys to understanding what mere word studies cannot properly illuminate.

This goes over much of what Johnny Miller wrote in his book, "In the Beginning We Misunderstood."

http://www.kevinstilley.com/wp-content/ ... -Myths.pdf

I agree of course because there is no reason to believe that the writer(s) of Genesis had science in mind when it was written.
It was a theological and Historical account of/for the Hebrew people.
It was written TO the people of that time, BY the people of that time WITH the language and imagery of that time that the audience would understand.

Although I tend to agree it was written for the Hebrew people at that time there is still truth in it because God's word is true.There have been times in the past that science made a discovery that confirmed the bible true and I don't believe it is going to stop because of modern science as some do.As we move forward more will be revealed true as science makes discoveries however sometimes it is our interpretation of it that causes us to be wrong and once the discoveries are made the bible is then interpreted correctly.This has also happened in the past like when Christians based on an interpretation believed the sun goes around the earth and science proved this wrong,it was realized that the bible never said the sun goes around the earth,all it did was reveal the sun had its own orbit and it travels from one end of heaven to the other in its orbit.

Man was wrong yet God's word was right the whole time as the sun does have its own orbit like King David revealed in Psalm 19 and yet King David did not have a Hubble telescope to look through to realize the sun has its own orbit and so it proves he was inspired by God.

Also science has been wrong too many times in the past based on their interpretations of evidence and so no matter which side you are on it is always smarter to "Let God be true and every man a liar."

tjdagger wrote:To abelcainsbrother ,

I take it you do not consider Noah' Floods as an explanation to the evidences you speak of?

To Ivellious,

Fossils and coal and oil are, frankly, great evidence for an extremely ancient Earth, and an extremely long history of life on Earth as well.

What of man creating oil from organic matter in minuets, using pressure heat and water?

What of soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils?

What of diamonds being created in the lab under conditions believed to be happening in the earth, but only taking months to grow?

...just to name a few...

How exactly do the above support a long age earth?

As for dating methods....

I am not an expert but from what I understand, radioactive decay involves obtaining the known half-life of an unstable radioactive element. Often transmutation occurs with the exchange of energy and atoms… effectively a chemical reaction.
Despite known problems and assumptions with dating methods, test are usually performed to confirm suspected dates. When dates match predictions, methods are heralded as accurate and reliable. When they don’t fit the assumed age then contamination and other factors are said to come into play.

A problem exists when the assumption is, that half life’s are calculated as constant and yet we are taught that a chemical reaction cane be slowed or speed up by changing the heat, concentration, pressure affecting surface contact, or the presence of a catalyst.

In a biblical world view we have a global flood, enduring droughts, fire and brimstone from the heavens, changing weather patterns, volcanic eruptions and the dividing of the earth.

In a Scientific world view we see deep time, an ever changing environment, magnetic pole shifts, many ice ages, meteor impacts, vast localized flooding, global volcanic eruptions, mass extinctions.

Both pose problems for accurate reliable dating results.

Many times known ages (eye witness accounts) for recent rock formations have been tested and shown dates grossly over the known age. If known dates cannot be accurately obtained, why should any dates obtained be trusted?

Because the sun was shining the whole time during Noah's flood no I don't make all of the evidence in the earth be explained by Noah's flood that happened about 4300 years ago.I do not reject Noah's flood at all but there is no reason to make all of the evidence in the earth fit into just Noah's flood when the sun was shining as most of the evidence would have decayed away.However I do believe based on reading the bible and reading what science says about Neanderthals that these were the descendants of Cain and they perished in Noah's flood.But not the primates evolutionists think evolved into man,they lived in the former world long before this world was created and man was created.

No Gap theorist rejects Noah's flood at all we just don't make all of the evidence in this earth be evidence for Noah's flood like YEC's do.If there was a former world on this earth that perished then the kind of evidence scientists have made fit into evolution back up and confirm a former world existing,NOT evolution.Rememer everything in the earth is looked at and examined as if life evolves when not one scientists can prove or demonstrate life evolves.If you don't know about or understand the Old earth Gap theory then you should look into it before you reject it as it is not well known about today but at one time before Charles Darwin it was taught in Christian churches as the truth.Also the Egyptian teaching in the article above if it is true would effect Young earth creationism not the Gap theory.

To abelcainsbrother ,

you wrote,

"No Gap theorist rejects Noah's flood at all we just don't make all of the evidence in this earth be evidence for Noah's flood like YEC's do.If there was a former world on this earth that perished then the kind of evidence scientists have made fit into evolution back up and confirm a former world existing,NOT evolution.Rememer everything in the earth is looked at and examined as if life evolves when not one scientists can prove or demonstrate life evolves.If you don't know about or understand the Old earth Gap theory then you should look into it before you reject it as it is not well known about today but at one time before Charles Darwin it was taught in Christian churches as the truth.Also the Egyptian teaching in the article above if it is true would effect Young earth creationism not the Gap theory."

I am fully appreciative of the fact that science has dismissed the notion of a God and therefore does not focus or spend resources on investigating issues of God, the soul or spirit and "things unseen". I am also fully aware that science owes it's "scientific method" of investigation to early God fearing scientists who rationalized that a God of rule, authority, rational and order should be able to be reliably and repeatedly demonstrated through experimentation.

I was once a proponent of a variation of the Gap theory. Some of the problems for me personally are....

1. Gods Eternal plan is to create a people for himself so that he should not be alone. Such an "eternal plan" along with the creation account as written do not allude to the need or will to create a prototype, lost, a different people or forgotten world.
1. The bible says the "evening and the morning" where the first day. Some claim the time frame isn't clear, how much clearer could it be?
3. Death and suffering must be placed before the fall. God repeatedly declares that it is very Good at the conclusion of each day. Death and suffering do not fit such a declaration when the "last' enemy is described as being death.
4. God molded man from the earth and breathed life into his nostrils and he became a living soul. Backed up by Jesus's statement that "in the beginning God created them male and female"." Beginning", not after the first world passed away, or any other point beyond the Beginning. The beginning being the creation of the Heavens and the earth. The very first act being the form, the formless God creates for himself Colossians 1:15.

If I cannot trust the Bible from the very first page, how can I trust any of it... let alone a variety of man's teachings that cast doubt on the fundamental concept of "mans fall" bringing death into existence, requiring a "kinsman redeemer" to fix the problem so that "man" and "all of creation" may be restored for all eternity as a people for God.

To say that the world is first restored to make way for mankind fly's in the face of what is written, removing man's creation from the beginning, calls Jesus a liar and ignores Gods eternal plan to create a people for himself and the purpose of the earth, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 45:18, Psalm 115:16.

I am also aware that this is merely my interpretation.