Evidence for God from Science

One thing that I've been thinking about for awhile. I believe in theistic evolution, in that God guided the evolutionary proccess in order to create us, the humans. And that the creation story was mostly figurative, and symbolic and such. That all makes sense. But what of Noah and the Ark? It seems that such a massive flood would've left quite a bit of evidence in its quake, plants would suffer and fish would be shocked by the sudden increase and decrease of salinity, plus the waters would combine and every lake would be salty. I've thought and thought but I simply don't know how to reaffirm my faith against such evidence. How does this make sense?

Also, just to reiterate so that nobody gets the wrong idea. I'm not refuting the Bible, or trying to break anybody's faith. I'm trying to make mine stronger.

believ3r wrote:One thing that I've been thinking about for awhile. I believe in theistic evolution, in that God guided the evolutionary proccess in order to create us, the humans. And that the creation story was mostly figurative, and symbolic and such. That all makes sense. But what of Noah and the Ark? It seems that such a massive flood would've left quite a bit of evidence in its quake, plants would suffer and fish would be shocked by the sudden increase and decrease of salinity, plus the waters would combine and every lake would be salty. I've thought and thought but I simply don't know how to reaffirm my faith against such evidence. How does this make sense?

Also, just to reiterate so that nobody gets the wrong idea. I'm not refuting the Bible, or trying to break anybody's faith. I'm trying to make mine stronger.

Welcome to the forum beliv3r.

The strongest arguments are that Noah's flood was not a global flood in nature but was local. This article best explains the position. Also searching the debates on the "local flood" might help as well... Enjoy.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

Thank you. That makes sense. Also, one more thing, could you explain how Adam, Eve, and the garden fit into everything?

believ3r wrote:Thank you. That makes sense. Also, one more thing, could you explain how Adam, Eve, and the garden fit into everything?

Umm, I'm not sure what you mean. You mean with the flood?

Gman wrote:

believ3r wrote:Thank you. That makes sense. Also, one more thing, could you explain how Adam, Eve, and the garden fit into everything?

Umm, I'm not sure what you mean. You mean with the flood?

No, I mean with evolution. If evolution is true, then the first chapter of Genesis is figurative, not really days but in fact eras. However, what of the next chapter, the one that goes into detail about Adam and Eve, where they simply the very first humans, the ones born from proto-humans, then got in the garden, then how did Eve come from a rib? Or is all this figurative as well?

believ3r wrote:

Gman wrote:

believ3r wrote:Thank you. That makes sense. Also, one more thing, could you explain how Adam, Eve, and the garden fit into everything?

Umm, I'm not sure what you mean. You mean with the flood?

No, I mean with evolution. If evolution is true, then the first chapter of Genesis is figurative, not really days but in fact eras. However, what of the next chapter, the one that goes into detail about Adam and Eve, where they simply the very first humans, the ones born from proto-humans, then got in the garden, then how did Eve come from a rib? Or is all this figurative as well?

As far as I know, the prevailing views on Adam and Eve with theistic evolution are that either a) Adam and Eve were created separately by God rather than being descended from other primates, or b) Adam and Eve did descend from proto-humans, but were the first true human beings by virtue of God giving them the "breath of life", i.e. a spirit. As far as the rib thing, it may be that actually only Adam was born from primates, and Eve was indeed created later from Adam's rib like it says in the Bible. There may be other theories as well, but those are the only ones I know. I do think that Adam and Eve were literal people whether theistic evolution is true or not though, as the Gospels do trace Jesus's lineage all the way back to Adam.

Just my $0.02...

believ3r wrote:No, I mean with evolution. If evolution is true, then the first chapter of Genesis is figurative, not really days but in fact eras. However, what of the next chapter, the one that goes into detail about Adam and Eve, where they simply the very first humans, the ones born from proto-humans, then got in the garden, then how did Eve come from a rib? Or is all this figurative as well?

There are various different opinions on it... For the most part, this is a progressive creationists website, but there are many others like you that are theistic evolutionists. Our website takes a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. That meaning is that life started with Adam and Eve about some 50,000 years ago. However, that being said, I guess you could also state that Adam and Eve could have risen via evolutionary means as well and became a "man" 50,000 years ago..

My understanding is if you take the symbolic approach to Adam and Eve, then Adam wasn't actually a real man but was a family of man called "Adam" that could have risen via evolutionary ways.. This explains a lot, but also has it's problems especially in light of Biblical terminology..

Another opinions that I don't necessarily agree with is that there are two separate creation accounts when it comes to man. In Genesis 1:27 God creates male and female in one creation account (at an earlier time) and the other is in Genesis 2:7 (Adam) and 22 (Eve) in the Garden of Eden. Why a separate creation account in Genesis 2? Because God was creating a separate group of people (that is the Jewish race) for which the messiah would be born out of.

We also had a debate over this same topic a while ago if you like to read it... My particular belief is that the story of Adam and Eve is a true historical narrative, however, certain words such as the "tree of life" or "snake" for the devil, are symbolic in the storyline. Thus the message was conveyed to the prophet in a visionary form relaying the spiritual aspects into a comprehensible form or fashion to the writer.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 84&start=0