Evidence for God from Science

As a recent convert to Christianity I have been trying to educate myself in these matters, I always thought evolution had to be true because that what we learned in school, right? As my partner is an atheist and geophysicist you can imagine the kind of dinner table discussions we now have

Reading Genesis 1:3, it clearly says that the day was divided into light and dark and that made a day; the first day. Now, that to me suggests a "day" was one rotation of the earth (although the sun did not come along until day 4 creating a photosynthesis problem as Theophilus mentioned).

Unless the earth's rotation on its axis is speeding up then the length of a day would have been approximately 24 hours. Is it possible that the earth's rotation has sped up dramatically between millions of years ago (for OEC) and 6000 years ago (for YEC) so that a single rotation could have taken a thousand years?

A possible solution, in my confused mind, is that the opening of Genesis is like a montage in film, it is a convenient way of covering a lot of information so that we can get to the main point of the story. Imagine the size of the Old testament if it detailed every single stage of creation and process of development for this planet in the way it does the generations of Adam. Adam was the main event and everything else is background - besides the truth that God created everything.

I want to know; why does Genesis back track at 2:4 when God made man in his image at 1:26? So far, I think it is because there was mankind made on day 6 but they were not Adam. Adam was different and had a specific purpose, he was to inherit Eden which was a special place.

If Adam had three sons then where did Cain get his wife and where did the daughters of men, with whom the Nephilim consorted, come from? These are genuine questions, not rhetorical, I truly want to understand the first part of Genesis.

BTW I do not believe we evolved from apes, God made humans with unique capabilities and there will never be a missing link found. Most importantly we have free will and intelligence to use tools, become the top of the food chain and develop complex written and spoken language. God had to to provide checks and balances for this powerful creature he created - and he has - in his word, his covenants and the message of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for the opportunity to increase my understanding.
Carolyn

Hi Carolyn,

I hope you're okay with the fact that it's easier to ask a question than to have any real confidence that you've come up with the right answer. As you surely know by now, this is a major debate and it has been as long as the church has been around.

The main site (GodAndScience.org) advocates a view called the Day-Age interpretation which holds that the days were very long, undefined periods of time. It's important to distinguish between two views here. One view holds that the "days" of Genesis 1 refer figuratively to very long periods of time. That is not the Day-Age view as promoted by this site. The other view holds that "day" is, to be honest, just a bad translation of the Hebrew word yom. This, which is the real Day-Age view, recognizes that while the word yom can and often does refer to the normal twenty-four hour day, the word can and often refers to an "age," or an undefined period of time. In that sense, it really doesn't makes sense to ask, "How long were the days?" because you're sort of begging the question. You should ask, "How long was each age?" and the answer will vary for each one. Science teaches us that some were very, very long indeed. You can get all the details on this view by reading the pages here: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

I used to hold that view and respect it immensely. For reasons I won't get into here, I've come to adopt the more traditional view commonly known as YEC or "young earth creationism." On this view, the word yom refers to normal twenty-four hour days. So, again, the question, "How long were the days?" is kind of silly in that light, because it's in the definition: they were twenty-four hours long. The difficulties with this position are obvious, and the vast majority relate to the radically different view of the history of our universe than modern scientific models do. There are some scriptural arguments against it as well, just to be honest, as is the case with each of the views on Genesis 1.

There are other views out there, but they all take Genesis 1 in a non-literal way. So you have Walton's "Temple Dedication" view; the Literary Framework interpretation; and then just straightforward mythological interpretation, and others still besides these. There's really no reason to spend much time on these views, because if you are willing to accept the argument that Genesis 1-2 does not describe real history in a literal way, then it doesn't really matter all that much which view you adopt. The theological points of the passage are clear enough regardless of which non-literal view you adopt, namely, that God is Sovereign over all, that mankind has a special place in creation, etc.

My advice is to focus less on the positions themselves and more on methodological question. How should we go about answering this? Do we take the Bible as an authority to be believed or not? If so, do we take it literally or not? If so, how heavily should modern scientific models play in the interpretation of the passages in question? What about other parts of the Bible that refer to the creation event--how do they impact our reading of Genesis 1-2?

These are the types of questions I have found helpful to ask, because while they are hard, I think we can come to honest answers, and by them, we can come to a conclusion that we understand and can defend and, more importantly, about which we can state clearly our presuppositions so that others know where or why the agree or disagree with us.

All the best in your search!

CazPerth wrote:the sun did not come along until day 4

If you read carefully you will find that the Bible doesn't say God created the sun of day four. It only says that God made lights in the sky, not that he created the bodies that produced these lights. The presence of light shows that the sun already existed so there must have been some kind of cloud cover which kept the sun from being seen but still allowed its light to reach the earth. This was now removed so that the sun, moon, and stars could now be seen.

I want to know; why does Genesis back track at 2:4 when God made man in his image at 1:26?

Chapter one describes the creation of the world and man in included to show how his creation fits in. In chapter two he then gives a detailed account of how his creation took place.

If Adam had three sons then where did Cain get his wife and where did the daughters of men, with whom the Nephilim consorted, come from? These are genuine questions, not rhetorical, I truly want to understand the first part of Genesis.

These three sons weren't his only children.

The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.
(Genesis 5:4 ESV)

Obviously Cain married one of his sisters. You can learn more about her here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... cains-wife

I don't think genesis one is a scientific document. There is no reason to expect that either.

RE: Who Cain married.
IF we take Genesis in a Chronological order then Cain was married and THEN Adam and Eve had other siblings.
There is no mention of sisters BEFORE Cain is banished, only after.

PaulSacramento wrote:RE: Who Cain married.
IF we take Genesis in a Chronological order then Cain was married and THEN Adam and Eve had other siblings.
There is no mention of sisters BEFORE Cain is banished, only after.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
(Genesis 5:1-5 ESV)

If we take Genesis in chronological order Cain was banished and then Adam was created. Chapter 5 isn't a continuation of the events of chapter 4 but a genealogy which begins with the creation of Adam.

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:RE: Who Cain married.
IF we take Genesis in a Chronological order then Cain was married and THEN Adam and Eve had other siblings.
There is no mention of sisters BEFORE Cain is banished, only after.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
(Genesis 5:1-5 ESV)

If we take Genesis in chronological order Cain was banished and then Adam was created. Chapter 5 isn't a continuation of the events of chapter 4 but a genealogy which begins with the creation of Adam.

Hence the reason one does NOT read Genesis other than how it was intended.
Genesis 5 is making a comment in regards to when Adam had Genesis and, because how it is ordered in the OT, it seems to presuppose that the readers know of Cain and Abel already.
That said, I recall reading one view that Cain and Abel were NOT real people and were used by the writer of Genesis 4 to teach a lesson ( a view I disagree with BTW) and the reason that the writer stated that was because of Genesis 5.

The Genesis account of the Creation is the literal Word of God through Moses. The Hebrew word "yowm" can mean several things, which is one of the unique traits of the Hebrew language and means that one must study the Word diligently, as did the Bereans.

The best indication that I have found in my studies that the six days of Creation were more than literal 24-hours days is found in the context of Genesis 2:4.

"This is the generations (towlĕdah) of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...

The Hebrew word towlĕdah literally means generations, multiple generations, and in the context of the expansive heavens the frame of reference for time is clearly one of expansive periods of time. This realization is the basis of my changing my view from young earth creations to old earth creationism as being the correct interpretation of the Be'reshit narrative of the Creation.

A brief explanation on my switch from the YEC view to the OEC view has been posted http://eschatologytoday.blogspot.com/20 ... d-god.html here.

For all of the arguments here about how long the days or period of creation was, I find that once Adam and Even were created, the whole time argument over how long it took to get to that point is mostly a pointless sideshow. However, whether they were actual people or not IS of TREMENDOUS importance. And one would think that would be the bigger argument, even though the time issue does relate to it. I just find it incredibly problematic for those believing that Adam and Eve were merely allegorical characters, as their being real is key to all that went down with the Fall, the need for a savior, their fall impacting all of mankind afterward, etc. And perhaps I'm wrong, but it would appear that most of those believing Adam and Eve to be allegorical, do so because the narrative doesn't fit with their faith in evolution - certainly not if they were byproducts of it, whether later imbued by God with a spirit/the image of God or not. To me, it's not even the belief that they evolved that alarms me - it's the belief that they weren't real people that bugs me. As if they weren't real, then the rest of Scripture would seem to make little sense, why the need for a savior, and then there's the whole question of why would God have Moses write down some fairy tale version of what actually transpired? It would be kind of like those whom used to tell their kids that they were delivered by the stork.

Philip wrote:For all of the arguments here about how long the days or period of creation was, I find that once Adam and Even were created, the whole time argument over how long it took to get to that point is mostly a pointless sideshow. However, whether they were actual people or not IS of TREMENDOUS importance. And one would think that would be the bigger argument, even though the time issue does relate to it. I just find it incredibly problematic for those believing that Adam and Eve were merely allegorical characters, as their being real is key to all that went down with the Fall, the need for a savior, their fall impacting all of mankind afterward, etc. And perhaps I'm wrong, but it would appear that most of those believing Adam and Eve to be allegorical, do so because the narrative doesn't fit with their faith in evolution - certainly not if they were byproducts of it, whether later imbued by God with a spirit/the image of God or not. To me, it's not even the belief that they evolved that alarms me - it's the belief that they weren't real people that bugs me. As if they weren't real, then the rest of Scripture would seem to make little sense, why the need for a savior, and then there's the whole question of why would God have Moses write down some fairy tale version of what actually transpired? It would be kind of like those whom used to tell their kids that they were delivered by the stork.

The issue of Adam and Eve comes down to a few points:
Were they real people?
If so, were they the first humans? or first "created"? or first of God's chosen? etc, etc

It is about how we view the story of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.
Was it a real place? and if so, were there any other people outside of it? did the WHOLE of humanity comes from only two people? etc, etc.

IMO, the GOE was real and so where Adam and Eve BUT they were NOT alone in the world, they were the only ones in the GOE though and it is via them that we have a special group of people that were related to them ( the Hebrew people, from which Jesus was born of).
I think that either Adam and Eve were created by God directly ( different than the rest of humanity that evolved) and their decendents "inter-bred" with the rest of humanity OR they were the first humans and after they left the GOE they and their decendents became the dominant species and "inter-bred" with "human like" beings that were around, OR they were the first humans to "know" God and the GOE was created for them, OR...well, as you can see, there are many "ors" and possibilities.

The thing is that we have to reconcile the written word of the bible with what we know science shows and we have to do this because we know two things:
Science has certain evidence that can't be denied ( so far anyways).
The stories of Genesis are NOT science and were not meant to be a biological account of humanity so they were not written as such.

PaulSacramento wrote:The thing is that we have to reconcile the written word of the bible with what we know science shows and we have to do this because we know two things:
Science has certain evidence that can't be denied ( so far anyways).

Science has evidence that can't be denied but none of that evidence contradicts what the Bible teaches.

The theory that humans evolved from lower forms of life does contradict the Bible but it is something that cannot be tested either by observation or by experiments. In addition all people have beliefs that will affect how they interpret the evidence they find. If a scientist believes that everything came into existence without any kind of divine intervention he will interpret the evidence he finds in the light of that believe. Perhaps this will clarify what I mean:

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/age-2/

The stories of Genesis are NOT science and were not meant to be a biological account of humanity so they were not written as such.

No, they are history and they do give a biological account of how humanity began. To deny their literal truth is to call God a liar.

no, only yec would be a lie in this very case. OEC's hold the same bible you know.

From the site liked to by theophilus.

clydeherrin-Here are some of the things I have learned from studying the Bible wrote:The fact that Adam and Eve lacked navels

This I find interesting.

Though the comments about the dino-tissue is very old, out of date,generally in error etc.

Very much cheers to all.

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The thing is that we have to reconcile the written word of the bible with what we know science shows and we have to do this because we know two things:
Science has certain evidence that can't be denied ( so far anyways).

Science has evidence that can't be denied but none of that evidence contradicts what the Bible teaches.

The theory that humans evolved from lower forms of life does contradict the Bible but it is something that cannot be tested either by observation or by experiments. In addition all people have beliefs that will affect how they interpret the evidence they find. If a scientist believes that everything came into existence without any kind of divine intervention he will interpret the evidence he finds in the light of that believe. Perhaps this will clarify what I mean:

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/age-2/

The stories of Genesis are NOT science and were not meant to be a biological account of humanity so they were not written as such.

No, they are history and they do give a biological account of how humanity began. To deny their literal truth is to call God a liar.

Explain where in Genesis there is a BIOLOGICAL account of human creation?

PaulSacramento wrote:Explain where in Genesis there is a BIOLOGICAL account of human creation?

No explaining necessary, it's in the plain text. Prior to the creation of Eve, God created all things, all life on Earth by His spoken Word (The Word who we know from John 1 was none other than Jesus Christ). Therefore, let's proceed to the text where the first action of God in BIOLOGICAL creation occurs... Genesis 2:21-23

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

Biological creation, pure and simple, in the plain text of His Word.

Next question?