Evidence for God from Science

Is there any explanation, scientific or otherwise as to how that could've been?
...........................................................................................

Genesis 1:6 Then God said "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

Genesis 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

Genesis 7:10 It came about after the seven days, that the water of the flood came upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the sky were opened. 12 The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.…
.........................................................................................

Could a watery expanse, shield ancient man from the aging effects of direct sunlight contact?

If you're referring to the water canopy theory, it's long been dismissed as a valid theory by YECs. Even AIG has dismissed it.
Forgive me for linking that site, but it's only for reference.
https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... opy-model/

I'll read the link later.

Is there any other explanation(s) or theory's?

Lonewolf wrote:I'll read the link later.

Is there any other explanation(s) or theory's?

They measured time in dog years back then.

FL

Hugh Ross's Navigating Genesis talks about this with regards to the change of our diet and climate change - which shortened our lives.

The way I see it is there is three options.

1) These ages are real. Not beyond the realm of impossibility if God is God.
2) A scientific explanation for the changes in life spans brought about by God like the one Hugh Ross talks about took place.
3) The ages mean something else - or there is a number system we are not familiar.

The truth is I don't know. I am more inclined to believe 3 but I guess this is another of those things that will be reveal on the other side of this life.

Silvertusk wrote:The truth is I don't know. I am more inclined to believe 3 but I guess this is another of those things that will be reveal on the other side of this life.

I'm not a fan of secret messages in the Bible, so the ages mean what they mean. We all have to deal with this. This is more fantastic: Adam would have lived eternally had he not sinned.

FL

Scholars have different views in regards to the lifetime given in Genesis.
Some think that they parallel the "kings list" of neighboring cultures in ancient Mesopotamia, while others believe they are correct, while others believe they are simply numbers that mean something else/more than simply just numbers.
It may be that people lived for a very long time BUT archaeology doesn't seem to agree with that.
It may be that the people decedent directly from Adam simply lived longer by virtue of Adam's very different DNA ( if you subscribe to the view that Adam and Eve were different).
It may be that CERTAIN people lived longer than others ( and that is why they were singled out and mentioned) because God wanted them to.

The truth is we simply do NOT know.

We do know that after God put a limit on Man and that limit has (with only one known example) held up and that is not to exceed 120 years.
Genesis 6:3

Now some say that the passage means that Man only h ad 120 years till the flood, other believe that it was a comment made on the TYPICAL human and that God could ( and did) allow for others to live longer if He so choose it to be.

Silvertusk wrote:Hugh Ross's Navigating Genesis talks about this with regards to the change of our diet and climate change - which shortened our lives.

The way I see it is there is three options.

1) These ages are real. Not beyond the realm of impossibility if God is God.
2) A scientific explanation for the changes in life spans brought about by God like the one Hugh Ross talks about took place.
3) The ages mean something else - or there is a number system we are not familiar.

The truth is I don't know. I am more inclined to believe 3 but I guess this is another of those things that will be reveal on the other side of this life.

or, 4) A combination of all 3, plus maybe even the water canopy theory, no?

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Lonewolf wrote:I'll read the link later.

Is there any other explanation(s) or theory's?

They measured time in dog years back then.

FL

hardy har har, that's so funny, im'ma bite you when i meet you

To continue Rick's theme of asking Ham . . .

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-time ... 900-years/

My own view is that, whatever physiological reasons one can point to, the basic problem is spiritual. The human body, down to its very cells, is what it is by virtue of its soul. In fact, the body is related to the soul such that the body is the soul's natural production, and that because of what a human soul is. So just as oak seeds produce oaks trees, human souls produce human bodies. It follows, then, that if something in the soul is "broken" then the body it produces will be broken in some sense.

Now, in the Fall, we have the "breaking" of the soul, and that accounts for death in general. But I further note that in Genesis 6, God notes that the Spirit will not strive with man "forever" but that he has 120 years. I am one who takes that to be a reference to how long humanity had to repent. But I also think Moses stated it the way he did on purpose. I think that, after the Flood, God's relationship with man changed. The Spirit ceased to "strive" with man in the way He did before. The relationship between God and man was further degraded, the "brokenness" ran deeper. It's interesting that you can see a very sharp decline in the ages of the biblical characters after the flood. So we see this chart from the article above:



I think Moses expected his readers to see that decline and he expected them to assign some importance to it. The point is this: something changed with the Flood, and the only direct statement in Scripture on the matter is what we have in Gen. 6:3. To get more speculate further, I think the reduction in ages is actually a grace of God. If mankind became so corrupt after living centuries, and if God promised not to destroy them, then a simple solution, given mankind's "corruption" (a better translation than "mortal" in 6:3) is to allow him to die sooner rather than later.

So perhaps the post-flood environment had something to do with it. Maybe genetics did, too. But if so, such things would be a minor cause or an instrumental one. The real cause, it seems to me, has to be rooted in the nature and effects of the Fall on the constitution of the human soul.

Could some of that same analogy be applied to stature; giant sized to the current one?

Sure, if there were any reason to believe that beings are supposed to be bigger than they are. I don't know of any reason that is the case, though. In that case, the size of humans now would be considered a defect, which in theory could be the case. But what evidence does anyone have to suggest that humans ought to be larger than they are?

Jac3510 wrote:Sure, if there were any reason to believe that beings are supposed to be bigger than they are. I don't know of any reason that is the case, though. In that case, the size of humans now would be considered a defect, which in theory could be the case. But what evidence does anyone have to suggest that humans ought to be larger than they are?

I was reading from The City of God by Saint Augustine, and apparently he as well as others in his times believed that in some past era (pre-flood), that man did indeed was of a larger size, so I was just wondering and asking, that's all.

Ah, well there you go. If I wasn't clear, then, yes, what I've suggested could be a fair explanation for that change, too (at least, it seems that it could be to me!).

Lonewolf wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Sure, if there were any reason to believe that beings are supposed to be bigger than they are. I don't know of any reason that is the case, though. In that case, the size of humans now would be considered a defect, which in theory could be the case. But what evidence does anyone have to suggest that humans ought to be larger than they are?

I was reading from The City of God by Saint Augustine, and apparently he as well as others in his times believed that in some past era (pre-flood), that man did indeed was of a larger size, so I was just wondering and asking, that's all.

All skeletal evidence shows the opposite, though.