Evidence for God from Science

Many commonly assume the days in Genesis 1 took the same amount of time as our Earth days today. Our days today are generally understood as being 24 hours long, and therefore many infer that the days of Genesis 1 are also generally 24 hours long. Yet how do we know for sure that if the days in Genesis 1 are from sunset to sunset, that such days generally took the same amount of time as today (24 hours)? It seems that many who advocate the days in Genesis as the same length of time as our current sunrise to sunrise, could be said to be reading something not in the text.

"So what?", some might say. "Whether today's time between sunrise to sunrise was different from to the amount of time in God's Genesis Creation, the days can still be understood as sunrise to sunrise." Yet this is only where those who believe in a 24 hour view of creation days (or perhaps more specifically a sunrise-to-sunrise view) begin to face problems. For while we can't be certain about the time length of days during creation, there is also a problem with understanding how the days could represent sunrise-to-sunrise which I'll now expand upon.

The first question a sunrise-to-sunrise (STS) proponent of the days in Genesis needs to answer is when and where dawn arrives on a planet in constant rotation? At any time during a 24-hour day the sun is both rising and setting somewhere on our planet. The problem we have is that a day can only possess a sunrise-to-sunrise meaning if a reference point is made to a particular location on the Earth. However, no such referential location is mentioned anywhere in the Genesis Creation. Rather the reference point is perhaps understood to a general reader as being the entire planet. But this is illogical! A sunrise and sunset doesn't occur to the whole planet! It occurs to a particular location on a planet! The entire Earth cannot experience a morning or an evening.

Some may still be thinking, "So what? It can still be the case there was a reference point!" Yet think about it for a bit. If we need a reference point on Earth to have a day (i.e., sunrise-to-sunrise), what about the first day? If God only created in six days, and Earth was created on the first day, then where on Earth was the first sunrise on the first day? If Earth did not exist during the first day, then there is no referential point for the first day to begin. Therefore, without any reference point existing on Earth, it is quite impossible for someone to understand a "day" in Genesis 1 as a literal planetary rotation. In light of this problem, a Day-Age interpretation seems to remain a more Scripturally consistent and logically sound alternative.

Kurieuo.

Isn't the setting of the creation in Genesis one above the waters of the Earth?

Genesis 1:2

Yes in Genesis 1:2 we are taken to the point of view of Earth's surface above the waters.

Kurieuo.

I wonder if that doesn't refer to God hovering OUTSIDE the universe, since "the heavens" were called "the waters of above".

My interpretation of Genesis(incomplete):

1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis starts with a summary of the events. Basically, it says God created the universe.

2: The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Heaven and earth were not separated yet, so I would imagine this refers to the early stages of the universe.

3: And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Perhaps space/time was stable enough to allow light to be seen? But who could see the light? Is it referring to photons or to some sort of "divine light" that would allow a physical mechanism of good to manifest. Open for debate.

4: And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Shadows only appear if there is an object to block the light (thus darkness). Does this imply the creation of planets(including the actual creation of our planet)? The manifestation of evil? Both? Open for debate.

5: God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Self explanatory.

6: And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7: And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

The actual creation of the earth?(the heavens were called "the waters above") What does this refer to? Creation of the atmosphere or the creation of our planet itself? The former seems more reasonable but the latter is also a possibility.

9: And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.

Creation of Pangea(the single continent that eventually broke into the ones we reside on for the geographically impaired), and a strange thing for ancient people to say, given that its "discovery" is relatively new.

10: God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Again, self explanatory.

11: And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so.
12: The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13: And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

God triggers a natural process that allows plant life to come. Plants break down CO2 to allow for animal life. One of the reasons why Theistic Evolution seems reasonable enough for me.

14: And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

CO2 atmosphere thins allowing for astral bodies to actually be seen? Just a hypothesis.

15: and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

A nice verse that could somewhat support YEC. It says that only now do the lights in the sky give light upon the earth. In Day-Age interpretation, they should have been doing this from the beginning. Some research into the original wording of this verse is necessary on my part.

16: And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

A stumbling block into the path of YECs this time. God already made lights to separate seasons and DAYS and NIGHTS. Did he make them again? Did He even make them to begin with in the previous verse, or did He make them earlier? Does He allow them to be visible now? If so, what about the astral bodies in the previous verse? Again, more research on my part is needed.

17: And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth,
18: to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19: And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Restating of what was already done.

20: And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."
21: So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
23: And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Again, God triggers a sort of naturalistic process. Notice how He allows their elements to bring them forth, yet still refers to them as being created by God.

24: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
25: And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Same as above, except we now have land animals.

26: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Again, it does not say how they were created here, so for now, anything goes(I'll deal with Genesis 2 tomorrow because I should be asleep now.

28: And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
29: And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.
31: And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

No actual creation, just God giving commands and setting a simple hierarchy. I'll discuss Genesis 2 tomorrow. Any criticism of my interpretation, and answers to some of my dillemas are welcome.

I agree with both of you. Mastermind, you hit something that I hadn't ever payed attention to before: "Let the earth put forth" and "Let the waters bring forth." Kind of interesting phrasing here, isn't it?! It would lead to a biblical belief in naturalistic means!

kateliz wrote:Mastermind, you hit something that I hadn't ever payed attention to before: "Let the earth put forth" and "Let the waters bring forth." Kind of interesting phrasing here, isn't it?! It would lead to a biblical belief in naturalistic means!

If you read the verse that follows each one though:

• 20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."
  21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

and also

• 24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.
  25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

The verse after the one with the "Let the..." phrase cuts off any interpretation that does not accept God's direct intervention with the creation of all living creatures (e.g., such as a naturalistic means via macroevolution).

Kurieuo.

I did comment on that, actually. My point was that creation can include a naturalist-looking process and still be called creation. Just because God triggered a natural event does not make them any less of a creation, or any less created than anything else. Does God need to snap His fingers and bring forth something from oblivion to count as creation? When an architect creates a building, nobody whines that he didn't make it appear out of nowhere, and thus shouldn't claim that he created it.

Mastermind wrote:I did comment on that, actually. My point was that creation can include a naturalist-looking process and still be called creation. Just because God triggered a natural event does not make them any less of a creation, or any less created than anything else. Does God need to snap His fingers and bring forth something from oblivion to count as creation? When an architect creates a building, nobody whines that he didn't make it appear out of nowhere, and thus shouldn't claim that he created it.

There are some things Scripture touches upon within creation which do actually quite clearly rule out God creating via natural processes. There are two words translated as "create" and "made" and they are bara and asah. While some theologians may view these two words as interchangable (this does appear to be the case in some instances), many others understand bara to generally mean something created brand new from nothing. Afterall, there must be a reason why we have two words rather than just one if they are identical. It has also been said bara can also refer to the creation of the soulish capacities such as self-awareness, morality, creativity, etc (although it seems clear to me this isn't always the case if ever). Now bara is used in Genesis 1:1,21,27, which likely indicates the associated creatures in such passages were likely made from scratch in some way.

In Genesis 2 we also read God directly formed us out of the Earth, as well as land animals and birds (Genesis 2:7,19,22). Therefore, such passages rule out God's creation of creatures and humanity via natural processes. Instead God directly created us.

Despite this, you (MM) might be interested in an article by Rich that I came across on GodandScience.org which I'd never read before (at least I don't remember reading). Rich seems to be very reasonable in his comments, and while he sees some flexibility within the "kinds" of animals for evolutionary processes, he still acknowledges Scripture is clear of God's direct intervention with the creation of all "kinds" of creatures. The article is called Naturalistic Biological Change and the Bible and can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/biblevol.html.

Kurieuo.

In light of this problem, a Day-Age interpretation seems to remain a more Scripturally consistent and logically sound alternative.

There are some things Scripture touches upon within creation which do actually quite clearly rule out God creating via natural processes. There are two words translated as "create" and "made" and they are bara and asah. While some theologians may view these two words as interchangable (this does appear to be the case in some instances), many others understand bara to generally mean something created brand new from nothing.

The only thing that can possibly be made from nothing is the universe itself(from a Biblical perspective that is). I know Bara is used for the creation of man just as well as I know man was made from the dust of the ground, and as such, I think they CAN be used interchangeably.

Afterall, there must be a reason why we have two words rather than just one if they are identical.

You are most likely right, especially since ancient hebrew vocabluary wasn't very rich, however that does not mean that the difference between the words is the one you present.

It has also been said bara can also refer to the creation of the soulish capacities such as self-awareness, morality, creativity, etc (although it seems clear to me this isn't always the case if ever).

Actually, it seems quite reasonable to me. After all, humans DO share most of their biological make-up with other animals. Our basic unit(cell) works in the exact same way, and so do most of our systems. If we were to take biological criteria to evaluate whether man was made "brand new", it would fail.

Now bara is used in Genesis 1:1,21,27, which likely indicates the associated creatures in such passages were likely made from scratch in some way.

For the above mentioned reasons, I highly doubt it(at least not in the way you put it). Adam was made of the dust of the ground(I could insert reasons for why even human evolution is acceptable here, but it would look similar to the gap theory, and I don't want ot get into that now), and Eve was made from Adam's rib(by no means "scratch"). But earlier in Genesis 1 it says:

27: So God createdbara man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created(bara as well?) them.


If God bara man AND woman, and we know Adam was half ass made from scratch while Eve was made from Adam, then I think that the idea that bara HAS to be creation from nothing, or biologically new goes out the window. I am not going to go so far as to accept that Man evolved from ape(for now anyway), but I think it is perfectly reasonable that animals did evolve.

n Genesis 2 we also read God directly formed us out of the Earth, as well as land animals and birds (Genesis 2:7,19,22). Therefore, such passages rule out God's creation of creatures and humanity via natural processes. Instead God directly created us.

Oh come on, let's think about this for a minute. If man evolved from a type of bacteria, where did the bacteria come from? Is it unreasonable to assume it came from elements of the earth? Are you suggesting that Genesis HAS to be interpreted as God screwing around with the atoms and molecules to turn them into living beings? And do not forget that (at least for the animals) God commands that "the earth bring forth" or "let the water bring forth". This is one of the main reasons why I think creation occured by God commanding nature and nature obeying.

Despite this, you (MM) might be interested in an article by Rich that I came across on GodandScience.org which I'd never read before (at least I don't remember reading). Rich seems to be very reasonable in his comments, and while he sees some flexibility within the "kinds" of animals for evolutionary processes, he still acknowledges Scripture is clear of God's direct intervention with the creation of all "kinds" of creatures. The article is called Naturalistic Biological Change and the Bible and can be found at http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/biblevol.html.

I have seen it before(I think), however it still only adresses approximately the exact points you have. I'm not saying my interpretation is correct, or the most biblically sound, but I think it is by no means unreasonable, nor do I need to make Genesis "figurative" to defend it.

And Kmart, go away and let the grown ups talk.

Woah!

I just had an insight.

During the first stages of the universe light could not travel because photons were constantly disrupted by the newly formed matter. This is predicted by the big bang theory and has been verified by the cosmic background radiation.

Perhaps day 1 is referring to this time period?

What is our basis for reasoning that the word "day(s)" in Genesis 1 means anything other than a day as we know it? Is it scientific or Biblically based? Is there a pattern from Scripture that we can use? What about Exodus 20:11 and also 31:17? If we exegete Scripture correctly, then these passages MUST refer to the same. They MUST. So does this start a precedent for the other instances of the same wording in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures? Let's look at the Hebrew "shesh yowm" (six days) for just a minute:

Exodus 16:26 - six, consecutive days
Exodus 20:9 - six, consecutive days
Exodus 24:16 - six, consecutive days
Exodus 31:15 - six, consecutive days
Leviticus 12:5; 23:3 - six, consecutive days
Deuteronomy 5:13; 16:8 - six, consecutive days
Joshua 6:3,14 - six, consecutive days

What is different, then, about Ex. 20:11 from all the other verses? I believe time began on Day 1 and the same clock governs all those passages as well as Genesis 1.

The Day/Age Theory has no Biblical basis. It uses science as it's backbone, and not the Scriptures. Genesis 1:1 says nothing of the Big Bang. It simply states the heavens and the earth were created. To say that it was the Big Bang is an assumption and adds to the Scriptural text. We must be very careful in this arena, and "assuming" that a day is anything other than such, falls in the same category. Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18; 2 Pet. 1:20,21 define the principal.

Did you read the link to the description of Day-Age posted by Kurieuo Strix? Because there are really some good points to be made.

While I disagree with Day-Age myself, I certainly have no issue with people trying to make sense of scripture in light of new knowledge. The Bible says nothing about the Earth orbiting the sun, but just because it does, does not make the Bible any less true. Knowing that the Earth is a sphere, we properly conclude that descriptions decribing the "four corners of the Earth" are figurative, given that the Earth has no corners.

However, viewing scriptures in new light is certainly a road to be travelled very carefully. Only when something is known as fact would I be comfortable attempting to do this, and it's for this reason that I reject Day-Age; I feel that it's a knee-jerk reaction to what is still very speculative science.

What is less speculative is that the Earth itself has been around for quite some time... We even have ice layers that date back a number of hundreds of thousands of years. So at this point, I think science is beginning to adequately show that the Earth itself is quite old. To reconcile God creating it in 6 days, I adhere to the theory that God made it already old.. I never found reason to believe that God would need to make a virgin planet and allow it to age naturally; rather He created the Earth literally already old, and did it in a manner consistent with the laws of physics and nature that He also created... A big Fast Forward button.

As it is, my views are typically attacked by Day-Agers and YEC's alike... Ahh well.

Felgar,

I agree with you that we cannot rule out a great many things, but the silence of God is as powerful as the commands He presents. I do not discount scientific knowledge wholesale, simply because the Scriptures do not speak about it, but I am cautious. My main point is that we should always rely on Scripture as our foundation for creationist views and not science. Science can enhance the Biblical view, but if we aren't careful, we find that it can tear it down. I guess my biggest fear is viewing the Scriptures in light of "new knowledge". That "new knowledge" is constantly changing in scientific circles and it seems to flow against the current of passages like Heb. 13:8.

With respect to the age of the Earth and the universe in general, I think there is yet much to be learned. In my view, most accepted dates are speculative at best, simply because of the volatile nature of the constants that are used in the measurements, and the great many incongruities in the soil and in space.

Thanks for pointing out the post by Kurieuo.

Strix wrote: That "new knowledge" is constantly changing in scientific circles and it seems to flow against the current of passages like Heb. 13:8.

With respect to the age of the Earth and the universe in general, I think there is yet much to be learned. In my view, most accepted dates are speculative at best, simply because of the volatile nature of the constants that are used in the measurements, and the great many incongruities in the soil and in space.

Yup I agree with both of these statements. True the age of the Earth is still in much doubt, but ever less so. There are a lot of dates that point to 4-5 billion years, and even with a huge magnitude of error it's getting to the point where we can at least all agree that it must be at least a million years old. That in conjunction with ice layers, and seasonal sediments in lakes, etc. it's a stretch to think that the Earth started from scratch less than 10,000 years ago.

Besides, Earth aside, the distance of stars leaves almost no doubt whatsoever that the universe itself is a number of billions of years old. Again, just because God made it a few thousand years back, doesn't mean He made it young.