Evidence for creation discussed

(30) J. Warner Wallace: Tampering with Evidence - 2018 Xenos Summer Institute - YouTube

Evidence for creation discussed by a cold case detective.

One caveat here - the presenter is an ex-detective and no matter how good he was at solving crimes, that doesn't qualify him to make expert statements on issues of Cosmology, life and its beginnings, or the functioning of the physical Universe.

In addition, even if a solid argument can be made for a conscious creator of our Universe, that doesn't in any way mean it has the remotest similarity with any 'God' believed in by people.

@truthmuse I think there is something to the 'fine-tuning' argument, but I've seen so many substandard versions of it and misunderstandings of what it really is.  But yes, I think it's possible to construct a formal argument along those lines.  I think former atheist Antony Flew incorporated 'fine-tuning' in his argument for theism.

@stephen_33 point taken

He is/was a cold-case detective, meaning he has to solve crimes that happen a long time ago. I think his presentation is good, but I'm admittedly biased.

Who is qualified to solve questions of the origins of the known universe? At best he can make a good case as anyone else whose limits are found in space time.

Well in fairness a physicist or philosopher of science would be better qualified, but I don't have a problem with non-experts doing a presentation like this if they've done their homework, know their facts, give an accurate presentation, etc. 

He is an expert in solving mysteries with respect to crimes, along with some additional education, but none of that matters if he goes off into left field which I don't think he does.

I haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing yet. 

No worries, I think it is worth the time for whatever that is worth.

Those who study such things professionally, for their entire careers perhaps? When it comes to those subjects, the presenter probably knows little more than I do.

You will never know unless you watch.

Forget the video and buy yourself a concordance. I think you'll find the words, translations in Gen ch 1 are specific and unique.

For example, Gen c 1 v 2 " The Spirit of Eliohym moved ( rachaph = vibrate, shake, flutter ) upon the waters" indicating the Holy Spirit was doing a specific work at that time.What was the work? We may never know. I always imagined the vibrating was creating gravitational energy keeping the waters and earth in on specific place until the Lord fashioned them together........

The differences between 'light'  ( V 3 = 'owr ' ( ore ) illuminate compared to c1 v 18 = 'meorah' ( meh-o-rah ) luminous body.

Buy a concordance.I'm sure you'll find it to be not only an educational tool, but the beginning of a grand adventure in seeing our planet as well as ( perhaps ) the beginning of our known universe.

But is there a concordance that describes the mind-boggling length of time that passed before our world even came into existence? Some 9,170,000,000 years to be correct.

Context!

Don't think there's a concordance Stephen, but Micah ch 5 v 2 and Rev ch 22 v 13 just might cover that!

I doubt that very much hello  😄

But if you'd care to quote the verses you think relate to the passing of such vast time periods, please do.

Genesis 1 is a theological polemic that presupposes an erroneous prescientific view of the world.  It presents theology, not science.  Genesis 1.2 is a reference to the chaotic, pre-existent, primeval cosmic waters believed in Ancient Near East cosmologies, not the physical creation of the earth or any physical phenomena like gravitational waves.  The light on Day 1 is the light source for daylight that they believed was separate from the sun.

It is separate from the sun....or am i missing something......

Correct.  There is daylight before the sun rises and daylight still exists during an eclipse, so 'naturally' based on observation it seemed to them that the source of daylight was separate from the sun, which they saw as an additional light source.  This is why we see the creation of daylight on Day 1--which then marks evening and morning each day--separate from the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4.  They did not make the connection that the sun was the source of daylight.

So then do you think v3 is perhaps the beginning of our known universe?

Stephen _33 and i discussed this at least a year ago and seemed to agree that this is 'universal inflation,' - 'the speed at which the universe expanded during the first fraction of a second before settling down to it's current rate of expansion.'

Our discussion is under the 'Big Bang' topic somewhere in this forum.

I think it's a mistake to try to read any modern science into Genesis 1.  We must be careful not to commit the error of anachronism (reading 'out of time') where we read Genesis 1 through the lens of our modern understanding instead of the Ancient Near East historical/cultural context in which it was written.

Here's a good rule of thumb to follow: Would the original readers of Genesis 1 have understood it this way?

If the answer is no, then we know it is the incorrect interpretation.  The original readers never would have read Genesis 1 and thought v. 3 was describing the Big Bang and cosmic inflation.  They would have no idea what those things are, so that cannot be the original intended message of Genesis 1.  In fact, even before 1970 no one would have thought that because cosmic inflation theory hadn't been invented yet.

Instead, Genesis 1 seems to be a direct refutation of ancient Egyptian creation accounts.  Egyptian creation accounts predate Genesis 1 but follow a similar sequence of events including the creation of light before the sun is created.  This 'light' is identified as the Egyptian god Atum-Rê which later creates the sun.  Genesis 1 directly refutes these Egyptian teachings.  Instead of light being a deity, Genesis 1 teaches that it is simply part of creation and something that the one true God Elohim creates by divine command.