Creation: Perfect Timing and Chance

[sedulous_samantha]

Dear everyone,

I am very new to Christianity, and as well as a bible, I am interested in reading Christian books too.

There is something that I have been thinking about, and I wonder if any book has been written on the subject. Perhaps somebody could advise me if they know of any? Thanks. If not - I hope to at least spark a discussion here!

I don't know much about creation from any point of view, but I do know that we are only here today thanks to perfect timing and chance. Perfect timing about the big bang, chance that the conditions were perfect for human creation. Somebody on CF said that if the force of gravity had been just fractionally higher or lower, we wouldn't have survived.

I am exploring the viewpoint not of science against religion, but of science completely submerged in religion. Science can't explain where the laws of physics came from, or how it was so unbelievably improbable that these laws would all work together to create human beings. So my question is: can these extraordinary 'coincidences' prove the work of God? And if theories have been put forward about this, can anybody explain them better or point me to a book?! Finally - is there any sort of subject or topic title for this, so that I can search the internet?

Thank you everyone!

P.S. I am very new to putting forward any opinions about anything, so feel free to pick apart my words and rephrase them!

 

[KelComma]

You say you know we are here by "perfect timing and chance". You go on to imply that you believe in the Big Bang, but also in some sort of creation. Really, I don't know what you believe.

Either way, your assumptions on origins directly conflict with those of Genesis. You say that you're a new christian, the teachings of the origin of human kind and the universe are vital to christian doctrine. In accordance with the biblical timeline, the earth has only existed for 6000 years, that is taking the creation days in Genesis literally. People often do not like to take the days literally, or insert some sort of time-gap; however, the evidence that these were, in fact, meant as literal days is conclusive. (If you want to know more say something.)

BTW - All science is based on religion. Naturalistic, Materialistic, Humanistic, various other presuppositions govern atheistic and other scientific exploration.

 

[sedulous_samantha]

Let me explain myself further.

I believe in the big bang, and I think that God might have caused the big bang. In terms of "directly" conflicting with Genesis, I don't think that the big bang or evolution do this. In the first few verses of Genesis, we are told that the Earth was a "formless void" [NRSV]. Now, somehow that formless void must have come into existence. Whether God caused that big bang (if that theory is correct) or not, Genesis starts after its occurance - meaning that there is no conflict.

In terms of evolution, the 7 days of creation are in the exact same order as any scientist would explain evolution. Now, I think that they did occur in 7 days. However, the time period for a 'day' can be questioned, and has been questioned. I would like to look into this further, but I have read information saying that each day could in fact take thousands of years. KelComma, do you know any sources where I can find out more?

Returning to my original question. Have apologists ever set out a case for God's existence, by pointing to the precise timing and chance of creation? If so, I would be interested to know if a topic name covers this, or if anybody can recommend any good books to me. Thanks guys.

 

[KelComma]

as I don't have enough posts to link you to an external site, go the google, find 'answers in genesis', then go 'Q&A topics', 'Creation Compromises', and 'Days of Creation' (first one), it'll give you a number of articles.

Scroll down; it's the third topic, I think. There is more info elsewhere, but that's some for now.

As for a response to your real question: Most of the influencial historical apologists (eg. C.S. Lewis), and the well known modern day ones (McDowell (sp?) Humphreys), consider creation (of earth) as the absolute beginning, ie. 0. So there would be no timing. An the big bang does, very directly conflict with Genesis. Genesis says that the earth was created before the sun. The sun AND stars were not created until (I think it's day 4) day 4. In the Big Bang model (obviously) the sun is long before the planets and the starrs are long before earth. Why do you hold so tightly to the Big Bang model, anyways?

 

[KelComma]

Also: if the days were 'thousands of years', then there would (inevitably) have to have been death and suffering before the fall of man. As organisms would have had to die for the less fit to be selected against (as per evolution). This does not fit with what god said (ie. creation was "very good.") Mutations don't sound "very good" either.. What's more important in this consideration, however, is that, if there were death/suffering/ etc. befall Adam's sin, the entire biblical message is essentailly undermined. All of creation could not "moan -NT" (in that it dies and suffers) because of Adams sin if that were the case. Therefore, there would have been no fall of man, bringing death and seperation from God. Jesus would not have needed to redeem man, in that case. God said that man was, basically, in charge of the animals;this would not make sense if he was simply the product of evolution.

 

[Curt]

Quote:
In terms of evolution, the 7 days of creation are in the exact same order as any scientist would explain evolution. Now, I think that they did occur in 7 days. However, the time period for a 'day' can be questioned, and has been questioned. I would like to look into this further, but I have read information saying that each day could in fact take thousands of years. KelComma, do you know any sources where I can find out more?


Gen 1:1-5
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(KJV)
[There was no before the first day.]

Exod 20:10-11
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(KJV)
[This makes the time facter pretty obvious unless you would have us believe that we should work for 6,000 years before we could rest. I realy don't think so.

 

[sedulous_samantha]

Thanks for your responses KelComma. I hadn't thought about the order of the sun and star creations. So, do any Christians believe in Genesis as the true creation, when there is such evidence for the big bang (which is why I keep going back to it!)?

I think that you could probably break up a URL and be allowed to post it here, for instance:

www. ** google. ** com

That might work? Maybe you could e-mail the link to me as I'm having a little trouble understanding your directions! samantha_@allmail.net

Curt - I was thinking about what you said just yesterday, in fact! Ok, here's my thought of the day: if those days were each 1000 years, then yes, it is implied that we should work 6,000 years before we get a break. But after those 6,000 years, we get a break of 1,000 years. That ratio of 6:1 is the same as any week with Sunday as the sabbath day. So perhaps, God implied that it was good to work for 6 anythings, then pause for the 7th. Possibly?



*EDIT: Oops! I just found the link perfectly. Here it is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Genesis.asp#days

 

[KelComma]

If you search around on that site's question and answer topics you'll probobly find a lot of other interesting stuff, particlularly on the Big Bang. A great site

 

[jbarcher]

I'm moving this to the CS/TE forum. Though I'd really like to see someone actually demonstrate that, on the basis of the genealogies, it can be conclusively and unequivocally shown that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[jazzbird]

Hey Sam!

Here is a fantastic site for you: Reasons to Believe

The founder is a Christian astro-physicist who believes that the Bible and science are not in conflict and that the Lord reveals Himself through the natural world. Many Christian scientists, Old Testament scholars, and philosophers believe that creation did begin with the big bang and that God created the universe and the world over the course of billions of years.

Answers in Genesis which KelComma recommended to you is a young earth site, and reasons to believe is an old earth site. Both believe that the world was created by God and neither believe in evolution. However, young earthers believe the earth has been around for less than 10,000 years and old earthers believe it's about 4.5 billion years old. There are also Christians who believe that God used evolution to create the world, but I'm not sure of sites to direct you to for that, and I don't know how many Christians hold this view.

As you are just beginning to explore creation, I think it would be great for you to look at all the positions.

 

[jazzbird]

Exod 20:10-11
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(KJV)
[This makes the time facter pretty obvious unless you would have us believe that we should work for 6,000 years before we could rest. I realy don't think so.

A thousand years is but a day to the Lord. Exodus 20 is a blueprint for how we are to live our lives.

 

[jazzbird]

Genesis says that the earth was created before the sun. The sun AND stars were not created until (I think it's day 4) day 4. In the Big Bang model (obviously) the sun is long before the planets and the starrs are long before earth. Why do you hold so tightly to the Big Bang model, anyways?

Actually, Genesis 1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

What is the heavens? It is made up of stars, and the sun and galaxies, etc. God created the heavenly bodies on the first day of creation.

In Job we learn that God placed a cloud covering over the earth:

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4-9)

When God says "let there be light" on the fourth day, it does not say that he created the sun at that moment. It is a command for the light to appear. In other words the covering was removed so that the sun shone on the earth.

 

[sedulous_samantha]

Hii everyone,

Thank you to everybody for your posts.

Jazzbird, I sent you a PM - go check it! Thank you for explaining that Answers in Genesis is a young-Earth view, and Reasons to Believe is an old-Earth view. The websites should point this out themselves, to avoid confusing those new to Christianity!

Any further comments would still be wonderful. Perhaps some on the old-Earth view now, and its plausibility?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

My views on Genesis are on my website - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm

What is interesting is that the Big Bang was opposed strongly by the atheist Fred Hoyle because it pointed to a beginning to the universe, which he didn't like. He was foolish in this, letting his religious beliefs guide his science, and when the Cosmic Background Radiation was discovered he was shown to be wrong.

The question is not really whether old earth views are plausible, but whether the young earth ones are. I have to say, that in my experience the amount of misrepresentation, misquotation and even sometimes outright dishonesty that goes on to defend the young earth cause must weigh very heavily against its plausibility. It really doesn't matter; how God created the universe is a minor issue of secondary importance.

 

[sedulous_samantha]

Thanks Karl - I'll read that now!

Is there a name for the old-Earth view? For instance, on Amazon, there are many different topics: creationism is one, and many others with long names. Under creationism there only seemed to be young-Earth views, so maybe creationism stands for that!

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Try Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Dear everyone,


So my question is: can these extraordinary 'coincidences' prove the work of God? And if theories have been put forward about this, can anybody explain them better or point me to a book?! Finally - is there any sort of subject or topic title for this, so that I can search the internet?

Try "Anthropic Principle".

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I am exploring the viewpoint not of science against religion, but of science completely submerged in religion. Science can't explain where the laws of physics came from, or how it was so unbelievably improbable that these laws would all work together to create human beings. So my question is: can these extraordinary 'coincidences' prove the work of God? And if theories have been put forward about this, can anybody explain them better or point me to a book?! Finally - is there any sort of subject or topic title for this, so that I can search the internet?

Anthropic arguments such as this usually are not considered very persuasive in the science community. The primary reason being that it is hard to know the probabilties a priori for the different fundamental constants of physics. You can equally well turn the whole problem around and say the 'we are here in our universe' and the probability is 1 that it is the way it is. Neither way is really a satisfying way of looking at things.


But one thing to avoid is dogma as in the following nonsense...

Read Genesis.


You say you know we are here by "perfect timing and chance". You go on to imply that you believe in the Big Bang, but also in some sort of creation. Really, I don't know what you believe.

Either way, your assumptions on origins directly conflict with those of Genesis. You say that you're a new christian, the teachings of the origin of human kind and the universe are vital to christian doctrine. In accordance with the biblical timeline, the earth has only existed for 6000 years, that is taking the creation days in Genesis literally. People often do not like to take the days literally, or insert some sort of time-gap; however, the evidence that these were, in fact, meant as literal days is conclusive. (If you want to know more say something.)

BTW - All science is based on religion. Naturalistic, Materialistic, Humanistic, various other presuppositions govern atheistic and other scientific exploration.

Really no need to comment on the blinkered, dogmatic bias in that quote.

And they continue:

as I don't have enough posts to link you to an external site, go the google, find 'answers in genesis', then go 'Q&A topics', 'Creation Compromises', and 'Days of Creation' (first one), it'll give you a number of articles.

Scroll down; it's the third topic, I think. There is more info elsewhere, but that's some for now.

As for a response to your real question: Most of the influencial historical apologists (eg. C.S. Lewis), and the well known modern day ones (McDowell (sp?) Humphreys), consider creation (of earth) as the absolute beginning, ie. 0. So there would be no timing. An the big bang does, very directly conflict with Genesis. Genesis says that the earth was created before the sun. The sun AND stars were not created until (I think it's day 4) day 4. In the Big Bang model (obviously) the sun is long before the planets and the starrs are long before earth. Why do you hold so tightly to the Big Bang model, anyways?

Notice how THEIR interpretation is to be held onto no matter what the facts. Also these folks don't have the least clue about the science they are railing against. You will seldom see more falsehoods and misstatements about the Big Bang than on this board here.

Anyone who directs someone to www.answersingenesis.org should be .... well you know.

By the way which Genesis ordering of creation do people want to follow - there are two.

If you search around on that site's question and answer topics you'll probobly find a lot of other interesting stuff, particlularly on the Big Bang. A great site

I hope this is not being said with a straight face. AIG is about 2 things - lying for Christ and making money of fundamentalists who know no science from AIG "scientists" who know a little science.

By all means read all you can from all the sides - always keep your personal bs filter in place - but do realise the "professional Creationists" have a financial angle in this towards Christians individually - which probably explains their propensity for lying and/or ability to remain ignorant.

And whatever people like KelComma and Curt say:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT EQUAL ATHEISM - IT IS NOT A SALVATION ISSUE!

 

[IHaveQuestions]

You say you know we are here by "perfect timing and chance". You go on to imply that you believe in the Big Bang, but also in some sort of creation. Really, I don't know what you believe.

Either way, your assumptions on origins directly conflict with those of Genesis.

No they don't, it is an interpretation

You say that you're a new christian, the teachings of the origin of human kind and the universe are vital to christian doctrine.

Wrong again. The mechanics of how we got here is not important to our Salvation.

Anyone who directs someone to the website "answersingenesis" should be .... well you know.

Could not have put it better myself

As Jazzbird said, many Scientists are in fact Christians, and she is right, I should know, since I am a Biologist.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Wrong again. The mechanics of how we got here is not important to our Salvation.


As Jazzbird said, many Scientists are in fact Christians, and she is right, I should know, since I am a Biologist.

Correct!

I am sick to death of fundamental zealots making the Creation/Evolution debate a salvation issue.

I believe the false worship of a literal Bible is a bigger problem for Christianity than whether you accept the theory of evolution or literal Creationism.

Many scientists like myself (astrophysics) are Christians, many others are from other or no religion. I will admit that I work in a field where religious belief is probably lower percentage wise than the other sciences but there is NO EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY as these rubes would have you believe.