Evidence for God from Science

One needs to understand the many levels of comprehensive data that support an old universe. It's not just one or two simple measurements. And THE reason we can measure and analyze via the scientific method is because God built astounding precision into how His universe operates - which gives us information that is IN ADDITION TO what is revealed in Scripture. So, I would say that a fuller understanding can be had by examining BOTH!

Here, in this short video, Hugh Ross discusses starlight distances, comprehensive measurements of it, and the powerful contradictory data to those insistent that the universe is merely thousands of years old: http://i1os.com/Distant_Starlight_by_Re ... 52kg.video

And here, in more detail: http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unr ... t-and-time

While I've argued that the length of time leading up to man is largely irrelevant, that we could honestly and so dilgently search for the answers of this issue ONLY because of the comprehensive measures of the incredible consistency in how God runs the universe is THE very reason we can engage in the scientific method. And so what we see is that over and over, the scientific method allows for many strong correlations for things that would appear to valdidate their truth. So, the big question must be, why would the methodologies allowed for and provided for by God, that have led to so much greater understandings of the creation - why would they appear to validate - on SO MANY complex parameters - what appears to be true (that the universe is ancient and the star distances are of immense lengths (distance and time-wise) from us? To me, with the validation of so many parameters, so many complex measures, of those diligently seeking the truth in their meticulous studies of God's Creation, that IF what so many measures overwhelmingly appear to confirm, given the power of the scientific processes that how God built the universe allows, and that has consistently produced discovery after discovery, that IF these many correlations and apparent validations are highly misleading, THEN the obvious question would be WHY???!!! Because that would suggest either God doesn't want us to know or confirm an important truth by studying His handiwork OR He wants us to think we know something that is actually totally false.

But why would God want such an important and lengthy quest by men striving so diligently to understand key attributes in the study of His handiwork - why would He want us to falsely conclude such false things about it - especially such a KEY thing? And especially if this sincere striving produces answers that would appear to directly contradict the trustworthiness of His word? WHY would He do, want, or allow that? Yes, yes, I know asking why God would do this or that is a dicey endeavor, but it does beg the obvious question. And if we are so incredibly wrong, it would appear God wanted us to be deceived by what mankind has sincerely sought to understand, or He just doesn't want us to pay attention to the results of a process (the scientific method) that A) He made possible, and B) whose use has validated so much of what we know about God's Creation. Again, we're told that the CREATION and the universe are parts of another witness to the majesties of God. Why would God allow the sincere study of that testimony to deceive or confuse us? "Seek and ye will find?" God has taught us many spectacular things through the time-tested scientific method. Yes, it has its limits. But if we're wrong about the time issue, certainly as it causes problems for those pondering the reality of God - it would appear that would be God's intention.

I know a few scientists at NASA were already convinced of Divine order in the universe back in the Apollo program era. The movement of the heavenly bodies was so precise they were convinced this is not random. So their conclusion was God was controlling the universe. To me its mind boggling how NASA can plan a mission way out in space that takes several years to reach a precise location at a precise time. The slightest deviation would cause a miss.

Looking at the photos taken by the Hubble Telescope is truly wondrous. IIRC one photo is filled with galaxies in an area that looked empty before Hubble looked into it. Who can say what is beyond Hubble's reach?

I don't spend a lot of time on this topic but I've watched a few explanations. There's a lot of verbal gymnastics to try and explain the universe and time to make it fit people's literal interpretations. Dean Braxton talks about people trying to put God in a box and God being far beyond anyone's box. Seems that's what is happening with people trying to pack the universe into a literal physical human interpretation of Genesis.

A few years ago I heard a Jewish professor say that Genesis is Jewish poetry. I have no idea about his statement's truth. He didn't say it was poetry just for poetry but it is written in poetic form.

Yes, it seems to me that for so many scientific data and parameter measurements , which so well cross correlate with each other, to be ALL wrong, well, it's pretty mind-boggling. Wouldn't God WANT us to draw accurate conclusions from what he allows us to measure, and with the tools He's given us to do so - ESPECIALLY as this Creation is ANOTHER WITNESS to His handiwork? Every young earth explanation I've seen, in its attempt to explain away so much data, that correlate on so many levels (that reveal an ancient universe/very old earth), are always very complicated AND and directly contradicts an enormous amount of data. Of course, the time issue really doesn't matter. But the fact that God's Creation could be sincerely and comprehensively studied and yet yield a highly inaccurate understanding of it - well, I'd just think God would want us to see the truth in studying the work of His hands - at least where there are so many technical tools and processes that He's given/allowed us to do so.

This topic dovetails into a little theory of mine. The gist of the theory is that as we are getting closer to End Time that God has been revealing more and more details of Creation via advances in technology.

But the bible says the earth is 6000 years old

#justbelievethebiblenotscience


Signed,

Dear me; all this sudden support for science is very confusing. Our only possible way of knowing the age of the universe is by looking at some very faint black lines on some spectrographs, while the evidence for evolution is piled high in museums and laboratories throughout the world. Yet there are those who accept the first but deny the second. Baffling....

hughfarey wrote:Dear me; all this sudden support for science is very confusing. Our only possible way of knowing the age of the universe is by looking at some very faint black lines on some spectrographs, while the evidence for evolution is piled high in museums and laboratories throughout the world. Yet there are those who accept the first but deny the second. Baffling....

We either go by revelation from God or speculations from man.I'll choose God every time because man has been wrong so many times throughout history about what he believed and taught was true.

RickD wrote:But the bible says the earth is 6000 years old

#justbelievethebiblenotscience


Signed,

Oh,I must have overlooked that. Where does it say the earth is 6000 years old? I'd like to see where it says that.Chapter and verse?

Hugh: Yet there are those who accept the first but deny the second. Baffling....

That has to do with how one views Scripture, whether mostly symbolically, or that it when it asserts literal, historical events, what is one's response to such. What does the verbiage and context allow for - and what does it NOT allow for. It is a huge mistake to think that those whom reject evolution are not also respectful of science. And those whom accept tradition that is mostly undefined - well, what have they really based their acceptance upon it - OTHER THAN simply because some entity of self-appointed authority SAYS so?

hughfarey wrote:Dear me; all this sudden support for science is very confusing. Our only possible way of knowing the age of the universe is by looking at some very faint black lines on some spectrographs, while the evidence for evolution is piled high in museums and laboratories throughout the world. Yet there are those who accept the first but deny the second. Baffling....

Ask an astrophysicist how they know the age of the universe. I bet he'll tell you it's a little more than some very faint black lines.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:But the bible says the earth is 6000 years old

#justbelievethebiblenotscience


Signed,

Oh,I must have overlooked that. Where does it say the earth is 6000 years old? I'd like to see where it says that.Chapter and verse?

#Globalflood
#Canopytheory
#kangaroosontheark
#oldearthcompromisers

Oops! Double post.

RickD wrote:Ask an astrophysicist how they know the age of the universe. I bet he'll tell you it's a little more than some very faint black lines. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way.

No, he won't. We get nothing from the stars except radiation, and interpreting that radiation is the foundation of astrophysics.

Philip wrote:That has to do with how one views Scripture, whether mostly symbolically, or that it when it asserts literal, historical events, what is one's response to such. What does the verbiage and context allow for - and what does it NOT allow for. It is a huge mistake to think that those whom reject evolution are not also respectful of science. And those whom accept tradition that is mostly undefined - well, what have they really based their acceptance upon it - OTHER THAN simply because some entity of self-appointed authority SAYS so?

I'm really scratching my head in an attempt to make head or tail of this. You can dismiss the six day creation of the Universe with an airy wave of the hand, but cling doggedly to the moulding of a woman around a dissected bone? Surely not...

hughfarey wrote:

RickD wrote:Ask an astrophysicist how they know the age of the universe. I bet he'll tell you it's a little more than some very faint black lines. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way.

No, he won't. We get nothing from the stars except radiation, and interpreting that radiation is the foundation of astrophysics.

Hugh,

You have no idea what you're talking about here.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html