Evidence for God from Science

I'd like to know what Old Earth Creationists think of the following. The examples I couldn't come up with (a lot of 'em) are taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp (I found it!).

The Bible says the earth was created first, then the sun.
Evolution says the sun was there first, then the earth.

The Bible says there was sea before dry land.
Evolution says there was dry land before sea.

The Bible says there was a sea before there was an atmosphere.
Evolution says the atmosphere preceded the sea.

The Bible says there was light on earth before there was a sun.
Evolution says there was no light before the sun.

The Bible says the stars were created after the earth.
Evolution says the stars came before the earth.

The Bible says the earth was there before other planets.
Evolution says the earth was there at the same time as other planets.

The Bible says there were land plants before sea creatures.
Evolution says the sea creatures came first.

The Bible says starfish came before earthworms.
Evolution says there were earthworms before starfish.

The Bible says there were trees before land animals.
Evolution says the land animals came first.

The Bible says man came before death. [OK, I know the answer to this]
Evolution says death preceded man.

The Bible says thorns and thistles came after man.
Evolution says they were there before man.

The Bible says man came before TB pathogens and cancer. [same thing, right?]
Evolution says those illnesses came before man (e.g. in dinosaurs).

The Bible says birds came before reptiles.
Evolution says reptiles came before birds.

The Bible says whales were before land animals.
Evolution says land mammals were there before whales.

The Bible says there were fruit trees before other plants (the difference wasn't great, but still).
Evolution says fruit trees were formed after other plants.

The Bible says there were mammals before insects (with a small difference).
Evolution says insects came before mammals.

The Bible says there were bats before land animals.
Evolution says the land animals came first.

The Bible says there were birds before dinosaurs.
Evolution says the dinosaurs came first.

The Bible says there were flowering plants before insects.
Evolution says the insects came first.

The Bible says there were plants before the sun.
Evolution says the sun was there before the plants.

The Bible says there were dolphins before dinosaurs.
Evolution says the dinosaurs came first.

The Bible says there were pterosaurs before land reptiles.
Evolution says the land reptiles came first.

The Bible says there were flying insects before land insects.
Evolution says the land insects came first.

Now, this is why I am still a YEC...
Either you shred Genesis, or the evolutionary timeline. Or there is a synthesis I have not yet been informed of.
If you're wondering how people can be sure about the 'small difference' items, the article says:

The order mentioned in Scripture suggests a slight difference in the timing of their appearance; i.e., they were created on the same day, possibly moments or hours apart.

But even if you hold that this is eisegesis, you still have to respond to the other differences.
I really wonder what OECs are going to say about this.

I think it's a strawman argument.

First, Evolution and Old Earth Creationism are not synonomous. YEC proponents often try to establish evolution in terms of the philosophies that have arisen from it, and equate it as being against God. Therefore by that logic, Evolution should be rejected because of the conclusion they believe it must lead to, rather than on its own merits. That is pretty sloppy thinking. It is the same type of thinking that was exercised in terms of Galileo and a sun-centered universe.

Equating OEC and evolution as tied to the hip is a debating technique and a pretty disingenuous one. OEC was in existence long before the science of evolution was developed and it was based upon hermeneutics of the Bible, not "compromising."

The Bible says the earth was created first, then the sun.
Evolution says the sun was there first, then the earth.

Answer from the main board.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

The answer is really quite simple - keep reading! Reading Genesis 1:1 or any other Bible verse outside its context is one of the worst things that a person can do.2 When we look at Genesis 1:2,3 we see that it begins with the conjunction "and." This fact immediately tells us that Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are part of one continuous thought. Remove the period at the end of Genesis 1:1 and read it as originally intended:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and void...

The conjunction at the beginning of Genesis 1:2 tells us that Genesis 1:1 is not a summary of the creation account! This verse is a factual statement of what God did at the beginning of the first day. There are other context clues that tell us that this is not a summary statement. If we continue reading the Genesis creation account, we come to the real summary at the end (Genesis 2:1).4 It would be superfluous to have a second summary at the beginning. As we continue to read Genesis one, we will notice how succinct the creation account really is.

So, we conclude that the text claims that God created the heavens and earth on the first day. What do the heavens consist of? Stars, galaxies, etc. So, we know that God created, at minimum, the stars and the earth. Actually, the Hebrew phrase translated "heaven and earth" refer to the entire created universe. Some people claim that God created the earth first and that the rest of the heavenly bodies were created later. However, we are led to contemplate why God said that He created the "heavens and the earth." To accept this interpretation, we would have to say that God created "nothing" and the earth. If God had only created the earth, the Genesis 1:1 would have said, "In the beginning God created the earth." So, we can safely say that God created the entire heavens and earth at the beginning of the first creation day.

The Bible says there was sea before dry land.
Evolution says there was dry land before sea.

Does the Bible say there was sea before dry land?

Same source.

God did a couple things on the third day. God's first action was the formation of dry land:

Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:9-10)

Similar to the first two days, God "let" the dry land appear. The land already existed, although it was underneath the original seas. Psalms 104 (the "creation Psalm") tells us how God accomplished the appearance of the land. According to the Psalm, "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them."11 The description suggests that God used some form of tectonic activity to form the dry land. If tectonic activity were used by God to form the dry land, it would suggest that the beginning of the third day would be a very long period of time.

We can continue point by point if you like, but I think you get the picture.

First, "Evolution" says nothing. "Evolution" in this usuge is a debating technique of personifying something and placing it in opposition to "God" and the "Bible".

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

Ironically YEC required greater faith in and speed of evolution than does Old Earth creationism or even methodoligical naturalism (which is really what you mean in the context of your terminology, by my oobservation.)

No rasonable person, even creationists deny the presence and scientific fact of evolution as a science. There it is a question of scope and time. OEC's vary and include Theistic evolutionists as a sub-group, but the idea of day-age which allows for this progression does not require or exclude the creative acts of God.

I'm sorry if I came over as saying that OEC and evolution were the same. I just thought that, since OEC shared the 'old earth' idea with evolution, they might also follow the timeline of naturalistic evolution to a certain extent.
What you say is interesting, in any case.

Anyhow, according to the Bible, the earth started out as covered with water. According to evolution (you know what I mean -- the naturalistic thing), it was a ball of molten stuff that slowly hardened, and water came only later.

Turgonian wrote:I'm sorry if I came over as saying that OEC and evolution were the same. I just thought that, since OEC shared the 'old earth' idea with evolution, they might also follow the timeline of naturalistic evolution to a certain extent.
What you say is interesting, in any case.

Anyhow, according to the Bible, the earth started out as covered with water. According to evolution (you know what I mean -- the naturalistic thing), it was a ball of molten stuff that slowly hardened, and water came only later.

No apology necessary. I'm sorry my answer is so terse. It's a product of haste, not dismissal of your questions.

In terms of the "timeline" you prwsent, it in fact, is a product of your own hermeneutic. If you accept 24 hour days, then yes, what you say follows.

'However, if you accept "yom" as a period of time much longer, there's not reason to preclude development prior to the exact point referenced.

It's a somewhat circular argument in all cases, appealing to the premise of 24 hour days that is assumed in the first place.

What do you believe the purpose of Genesis is in terms of its inspiration and overall theme?

OK. We're all hasty sometimes.

If I would accept yom as a VERY long day -- contrary to what is stated as the first point in this article -- you would still be stuck with the same order of events, and you have to resort to overlapping days, like you seem to do. What about the clear division of the days (complete with 'evening' and 'morning' mentioned every day) and God's survey of his work at the end of every day?

I believe the purpose of Genesis is to inform us about Creation, the Fall and its effects, the Flood, and the history of Abraham and his descendants until the migration into Egypt.

Let's save time.

I'm very familiar with AIG and have read most of their site.

Why don't you take some time at this location listing the articles and rebuttals we have at this site and then we can discuss points after reviewing the other position.

Fair enough?

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

Turgonian wrote:I believe the purpose of Genesis is to inform us about Creation, the Fall and its effects, the Flood, and the history of Abraham and his descendants until the migration into Egypt.

OK.

"Us" in terms of westerners living in the 21st century or broader than that?

Let me put it a little more specifically.

We both agree that Genesis is inspired by God, and infallible.

Who was the human author?

When did He write it?

To whom did he write it?

What was happening at that time?

Does that information point to anything more general and thematic in terms of the purpose of Genesis?

What errors might both YEC and OEC propenents be prone to make in terms of eisogesis by failing to apply a hermeneutic that fails to account what I believe you will answer above?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Fair enough?

Fair enough. But I told you I'm not a scientist, just a moderately interested person.

"Us" in terms of westerners living in the 21st century or broader than that?

I take that as a rhetorical question...

Who was the human author?

Moses.

When did He write it?

Probably somewhere in the desert...?

To whom did he write it?

To the Israelites.

What was happening at that time?

Don't really know. I think they were wandering, and possibly grumbling a little too.

Does that information point to anything more general and thematic in terms of the purpose of Genesis?

Genesis probably served didactic purposes. Does that mean Moses made up the whole creation story? Or God used it as an allegory to show His sovereignty?

What errors might both YEC and OEC propenents be prone to make in terms of eisegesis by failing to apply a hermeneutic that fails to account what I believe you will answer above?

YECs take it literally, because they believe God wouldn't purposely spread false information...even if that information wasn't the main thrust of the story. Maybe this literal reading is eisegesis.
OECs would rely on scientific explanations to determine how this text should be read.

Good deal.

Right on all points, but with this clarification.

It was written, during the exodus.

The primary purpose many derive from these surrounding circumstances,as well as examination of the text, is that it was to provide context to the Israelites that they were the chosen people of God and further, that in view of the History of Israel, which Moses, under the inspiration of God, recorded back through the beginning of creation itself, Israel could rely upon God to accomplish his promise of the Promised land to a people that had been in bondage for 400+ years.

I'm not arguing for an allegory or metaphore, (although such an interpretation could be possible and be "literal" IF that were established as the intent of the author.0

But, I do think that in addition to the factors above there are some important things to be derived from these facts that in no way detracts from the texts, inspiration and infallibility.

1. There are poetic elements to portions of the creation accounts that are likely indicative of these having existed in an oral tradition prior to their preservation in this form.

2. Given the Jewish author to a Jewish Audience, an element of prime importance was the establishment of geneology.

3. Scientific precision of the level appealed to by many in the YEC movement was simply not reflective of the mind set of the original audience and author, nor was it possible with the language of that day.

So, does any of this register with you in terms of the efficacy of YEC?

(I think OEC requires inclusion of these elements as well, for the record.)

OEC, in the purest sense, does not see science as establishing its position. It sees science as confirming a Biblical exegesis. It is hard to see that at times of the passion of the debate. If OEC is true biblically, given that God is the source of both Scripture and Nature, it is reasonable to expect that both will be in accordance with each other. That should be true of YEC as well.

Generally in debate, to be fair and effective, it is best to allow a position to define itself.

Bart

1. Of course, and oral tradition was very accurate in those days.

2. OK, so Creation would be comparable to...what? The Foreword? A digression?

3. What about this alternative?

Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis wrote:'When God began to create the heavens and the earth, he expanded a small grain of dust and said, “Let there be light.” And it eventually became so. From this grain of dust, over many great ages he formed the stars and then the sun and finally, after a long age, the earth and the moon. And the earth was hot and dry. There was no water anywhere on the earth. Slowly, God caused the seas to come forth, and from the water he formed exceedingly small creatures in the sea and he said, “Be fruitful and multiply and be slowly changed into fish and plants of the sea and creeping things and animals and plants on the land and birds in the sky.” And after thousands upon multiplied thousands of years, as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore, it was so. But in those days there were terrors on the land and in the sky, and many also fell prey to a host of terrible plagues. Animals were eating each other, and killing with poisonous stings, and from time to time many of the creatures that God had made died and were buried and were no more. But new ones arose to take their place.

'Then after a further number of long ages, God said, “Let us make man in our image.” So God took one of the animals that had arisen, which looked like a man but was not, and God breathed His spirit into this creature so that it was changed into a man. And God called him Adam. In like manner God made a woman also and Adam called her Eve. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” And it was so. And from this first pair came all the people of the earth.

'And after many generations those people who lived in the land around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, called Assyria, became exceedingly wicked.

'God found only Noah to be righteous on the earth. And He said, “I will send a flood to destroy all the sinful people.” So God told Noah, “Take your wife and your three sons and their wives and your animals and move to the land that I will show you. There I will protect you from the flood that will soon come upon Assyria and this people.” And Noah and his family obeyed God and they alone were saved, along with their animals. All the other people in that land of Assyria died, along with some of the creatures there. The birds which had flown away once the waters began to rise returned soon after. And Noah and his family multiplied and gradually divided into different languages and tribes and spread over all the earth. From one of those tribes God called a man named Abraham … .'

It doesn't have to be very scientific, but if OEC is right, Genesis 1 WOULD be a little off-base.
I guess you don't want to deny Adam as our first ancestor and the Fall, right?
[edit: This is NOT meant to imply 'An OEC is bound to deny Adam and the Fall'. More along the lines of, 'Even though the primary purpose was establishing genealogy, it is right on those other counts too, don't you think?']

By the way, out of honest curiosity: do you have a theory about who Adam was and how long ago he lived? Most probably you believe that he had a fully human mind which did not evolve, but was given by God. Did he still look somewhat like an ape, or was he instantly human? And was he made 'out of the blue', or from an ape?
If you prefer to avoid speculation on all that, tell me. I was just wondering what you think.

Turgonian wrote:1. Of course, and oral tradition was very accurate in those days.

2. OK, so Creation would be comparable to...what? The Foreword? A digression?

3. What about this alternative?

Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis wrote:'When God began to create the heavens and the earth, he expanded a small grain of dust and said, “Let there be light.” And it eventually became so. From this grain of dust, over many great ages he formed the stars and then the sun and finally, after a long age, the earth and the moon. And the earth was hot and dry. There was no water anywhere on the earth. Slowly, God caused the seas to come forth, and from the water he formed exceedingly small creatures in the sea and he said, “Be fruitful and multiply and be slowly changed into fish and plants of the sea and creeping things and animals and plants on the land and birds in the sky.” And after thousands upon multiplied thousands of years, as numerous as the grains of sand on the seashore, it was so. But in those days there were terrors on the land and in the sky, and many also fell prey to a host of terrible plagues. Animals were eating each other, and killing with poisonous stings, and from time to time many of the creatures that God had made died and were buried and were no more. But new ones arose to take their place.

'Then after a further number of long ages, God said, “Let us make man in our image.” So God took one of the animals that had arisen, which looked like a man but was not, and God breathed His spirit into this creature so that it was changed into a man. And God called him Adam. In like manner God made a woman also and Adam called her Eve. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” And it was so. And from this first pair came all the people of the earth.

'And after many generations those people who lived in the land around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, called Assyria, became exceedingly wicked.

'God found only Noah to be righteous on the earth. And He said, “I will send a flood to destroy all the sinful people.” So God told Noah, “Take your wife and your three sons and their wives and your animals and move to the land that I will show you. There I will protect you from the flood that will soon come upon Assyria and this people.” And Noah and his family obeyed God and they alone were saved, along with their animals. All the other people in that land of Assyria died, along with some of the creatures there. The birds which had flown away once the waters began to rise returned soon after. And Noah and his family multiplied and gradually divided into different languages and tribes and spread over all the earth. From one of those tribes God called a man named Abraham … .'

It doesn't have to be very scientific, but if OEC is right, Genesis 1 WOULD be a little off-base.
I guess you don't want to deny Adam as our first ancestor and the Fall, right?

By the way, out of honest curiosity: do you have a theory about who Adam was and how long ago he lived? Most probably you believe that he had a fully human mind which did not evolve, but was given by God. Did he still look somewhat like an ape, or was he instantly human? And was he made 'out of the blue', or from an ape?
If you prefer to avoid speculation on all that, tell me. I was just wondering what you think.

Oral tradition was remarkably accurate, in terms of its transmission over time, in large part because it was put into a form of verse (or parallelism, in the case of ancient Hebrew) which aided memory and reinforced the points being made. When you're dealing with that form in written literature (as a good portion of Gen 1 & 2 are) you have to be wary of attributing precise scientific intent to every word and take it in the sense that the original audience did: Namely, that of a wholistic and general account of the creation of the world and the attribution of it to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (I think that responds to the first two questions.)

The AIG response (as is typical in my opinion) is circular. They start with the presumption that God intended to be precise to the satisfaction of 21st century westerners and so "create" what they think would need to exist textually to satisfy the position. Frankly, they then use English, rather than what would be more meaningful, the original Hebrew as it was used and existed in the context of that day.

If YEC is right, you have similar problems and frankly they are compounded tremendously by the growing fact that the creation itself doesn't support their view. Scripture has to be primary for a Christian, obviously. It is not wrong however to expect that Scripture is going to consistent with the creation itself, if we assert (and we both do) that God is the source and creator of both.

I realize that is an appeal to science on one level. The reality, however, is that the OEC interpretation of Genesis existed well before the modern era of science, in terms of how we now use the word. It's not wrong to expect that evidence within the creation will affirm the creation account.

Your last question, leads me to believe you are still equating Old Earth Creationism with Theistic Evolution.

Theistic evolution is a subset of Old Earth Creationism, but it is not the primary view. Most progressive creationists would see the earlier "forms" of man as simply apes or ape-like animals.

Adam is seen by most as having been instantaneously by God as described. That is my belief. In terms of time, I believe it was more than the 10,000 years usually granted by YEC as allowing for some missed links in the Biblical geneology (which is not an error, simply moving over some generations and highlighting those noted.)

I believe it was likely within 50,000 years. I don't have the credentials to assert that based on my own studies or understanding.

A very detailed argument in this field is found in this article from our main site which was collaborated upon by Hugh Ross, Fuz Rana, and our board founder Rich Deem. It's a long read and very technical, but I'd suggest you take a look at it and if nothing else, perhaps it will help you to see that OEC and evolution are not tied at the hip.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ponse.html

Blessings,

Bart

Who was talking about 'precise'? I didn't say 'precise', only 'true'.
If you would be right, I would raise serious questions as to why God made such a big fuss about the whole creation story. If it didn't even happen in the order the Bible describes, why not simply convey the message that God is the Creator of earth, heaven and everything in, under and above it? Surely that would suffice...

YECs are also examining in what way Scripture is consistent with creation -- in what way 'creation supports their view'. They stress that facts are the same, but (scientific!) interpretation differs.

It's quite probable I'm misrepresenting OEC as a whole.

Woo-hoo! You allow for 50,000 years? That's approximately a thousand 'missed links' more than the most generous YEC estimate! I'm quite willing to accept that some generations were skipped, but hundreds of them...?

Turgonian wrote:Who was talking about 'precise'? I didn't say 'precise', only 'true'.
If you would be right, I would raise serious questions as to why God made such a big fuss about the whole creation story. If it didn't even happen in the order the Bible describes, why not simply convey the message that God is the Creator of earth, heaven and everything in, under and above it? Surely that would suffice...

YECs are also examining in what way Scripture is consistent with creation -- in what way 'creation supports their view'. They stress that facts are the same, but (scientific!) interpretation differs.

It's quite probable I'm misrepresenting OEC as a whole.

Woo-hoo! You allow for 50,000 years? That's approximately a thousand 'missed links' more than the most generous YEC estimate! I'm quite willing to accept that some generations were skipped, but hundreds of them...?

Well, your first comment of course begs the question, which order? Gen 1 or Gen 2? Is it possible that our western, static mind frame is pushing something into the text that was not intended in the original author's mind (Moses under Inspiration) or seen by the original audience? If their cultural mindset, worldview and holistic understanding of things in a non-scientific time allowed for no perceived difficulties with the differences within the same account, then perhaps that is a clue as to how careful we should be to attempt to read something more in there?

Do you see that we both are striving for the literal understanding but looking at it from different directions?

I think the overall message of Gen 1 & 2 clearly is an attribution of creation to God and demonstrates a deliberate, direct and specific order and construct to this world and universe. I think we need to be very careful in how strongly we apply that in precise, technical and scientific terms.

I respect that YEC proponents are making the effort to reconcile their view with the creation itself. I was raised YEC and for a time I was a reasonably avid supporter, although I did have doubts early on, due to the disconnect I observed based on my astronomical training and avocation.

My beef at times is I wish there would be a willingness to recognize that YEC itself is an interpretation of the Scripture and that it is possible for YEC to be wrong and the Bible still to be true.

Science is not infallible. It changes constantly and should. That is the nature of it. Yes, it is possible that science is wrong in terms of the dating. I rather suspect not, or not to the degree necessary to support YEC. But, I'll concede that possibility, as I must, if for no other reason than to model the same attitude that I wish the YEC movement would adopt with regard to their theology.

And yes, I allow for up to 50,000. Frankly it wouldn't bother me for it to be 10,000 or even 6,000. There are many OEC proponents who do see it that way. As I stated, I'm not an expert in this field in a technical sense. I have a lot of respect for Rich Deem, the founder of this board and I tend to take what he has to say as better educated and informed in that regard.

Don't let this or any other discourse discourage you from asking questions. If I seem terse, I apologize. I don't take the time I used to earlier on to try and be diplomatic. Most of the time it is just haste on my part rather than any desire to be disrespectful or dismissive. That said, I sometime get a little heated when I think OEC is being misrepresented.

You can't clear those things up without dialogue, so it's a good thing if it contributes to clarity.

Blessings,

Bart

It's all right...I understand. I realize that both OEC and YEC can believe in biblical inerrancy, and maybe I should study OEC more. I realize that YEC may be wrong, just like science and OEC. As Gadamer said, 'The fascinating thing about philosophy [and any hunt for truth IMO] is that the other may be right...'

Canuckster wrote:Well, your first comment of course begs the question, which order? Gen 1 or Gen 2?

Come on... Both Answers in Genesis and Tekton Apologetics Ministries (interested in defending the historicity of Christianity and refuting alleged biblical contradictions, not in science) maintain that Genesis 1 and 2 nowhere contradict each other.

However, I'm quite willing to let matters rest. Things are clearer for me now, and I need to do more research anyway.

Turgonian wrote:It's all right...I understand. I realize that both OEC and YEC can believe in biblical inerrancy, and maybe I should study OEC more. I realize that YEC may be wrong, just like science and OEC. As Gadamer said, 'The fascinating thing about philosophy [and any hunt for truth IMO] is that the other may be right...'

Canuckster wrote:Well, your first comment of course begs the question, which order? Gen 1 or Gen 2?

Come on... Both Answers in Genesis and Tekton Apologetics Ministries (interested in defending the historicity of Christianity and refuting alleged biblical contradictions, not in science) maintain that Genesis 1 and 2 nowhere contradict each other.

However, I'm quite willing to let matters rest. Things are clearer for me now, and I need to do more research anyway.

Fair enough.

I'm not arguing that Gen 1 and Gen 2, contradict each other as I obviously hold to inspiration and inerrency of the original manuscripts.

However, an answer is required for the difference and it requires a hermeneutic that allows for cultural and idiomatic elements. I'm a great fan of consistency. If you allow for the introduction of those elements into the interpretation and/or translation of a passage, then you need to be consistent and allow for those elements throughout.

It's been my observation (perhaps biased) that YEC often will only allow for the minimum application needed to resolve an issue within a passage and the revert to a literalistic standard for the balance.

That was my point.

By all means continue to digest and discuss as you are ready.

Blessings,

Bart