Has the biblical God of creation been proven as scientifically correct and how?

Answer 1

This is a question scientists and religious people have been debating for the longest time and both sides haven't come to an agreement. Honestly the way you believe is all based on your stance on God. If you believe in God then odds are you believe that God created the universe. If you don't believe in God then you probably believe the mainstream scientific on the creation of the universe.

I honestly believe that for the most part, the Biblical and scientific theories line up. God set in motion the Big Bang and then he fixed the things on earth in the time table that fits both science and The Bible. Many Christians say the Bible literally means the Bible says "The earth was made in 6 days." The word translated to day was the Hebrew word "Yom", but yom is a general term for any span of time, so instead of literal days, it could have meant in any frame of time. I know it doesn't exactly answer your question, but I hope it helps.

Answer 2

That will depend upon whom you ask. Those who believe in God feel that the arguments for His existence are solid.

As for the Creation:

These point to Divine Creation:

• The staggering complexity of every organ and every cell in the human body.
  
• The vastness of our minds and emotions.
  
• The fact that the universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).

• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
  

See: More detailed evidence of Creation

Also:

1) The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
"The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled" (Nilsson, N. Heribert).
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
2) Instances of falsifying of evidence by evolutionists, such as Haeckel's drawings, Archaeoraptor, the Cardiff "specimen," and Piltdown Man.
"Haeckel exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions, in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent. His drawings never fooled embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. The drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the standard student textbooks of biology. Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because textbooks copy from previous texts. We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks (Stephen Gould).
Dr. Jonathan Wells published a book in 2002 entitled Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells states that the book shows that "the best-known 'evidences' for Darwin's theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked."

3) Creationists see the "survival of the fittest" and the dating of rock layers by fossils as being perfect tautologies.

4) The fact that some qualified, educated, normal scientists do not believe in evolution. Or at least question it, even if they still preach evolution: "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without murmur of protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

5) The fact that there is a shared, worldwide tradition among every ancient society that the world was created.

6) Evolving of new organs or species has not been witnessed during known history.

7) Mutations are harmful, not beneficial. One of the tasks of DNA and of long-term breeding is to avoid or repair any changes brought about by mutations. This means that our genetic apparatus is programmed to resist change.

8) Mutations, even if beneficial, do not create new organs.

9) The fact that a great number of fossils have been found in the "wrong" rock-layers according to what evolutionary Paleontology would require.

10) The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
"A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
"The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

11) The problem of the impossibility of abiogenesis in general. "The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

12) The fact that evolution was once used as support for the belief that Blacks (or others) are less than highly-evolved humans. "Darwin was also convinced that the Europeans were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races" (Steven Rose, author). He also "reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females" (B. Kevics, author).

13. The first and second laws of thermodynamics point clearly to a Creator, since things undergo entropy rather than get more orderly over time.

14. "Radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age-estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often very different. There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists." William D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University.

15. "Even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age." Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus.)

16 a). At current rates of erosion the amount of sea-floor sediments actually found do not support a "billions of years" age for the Earth.
b) The amount of Sodium Chloride in the sea, also, is a small fraction of what the "old Earth" theory would postulate.
c) The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast to extrapolate a long age for the Earth.
d) The rate of accumulation of Moon-dust has been measured; and the amount of dust on the Moon was found to be vastly less than what scientists had predicted before the Moon-landings.

See: Problems in Evolutionary astronomy

And: Evidence of a young Earth

e) Helium is generated by radioactive elements as they decay. The escape of this helium into the atmosphere can be measured. According to the Evolutionary age of the Earth there should be much more helium in the atmosphere, instead of the 0.05% that is actually there. The only way around this is to assume that helium is escaping into space. But for this to happen, the helium atoms must be moving at above the escape velocity, of 24,200 miles per hour. The usual speed of helium atoms is only 5,630 mph. A few atoms travel much faster than the average, but still the amount of helium escaping into space is only about 1/40th the amount entering the atmosphere.

This is an unsolved problem, concerning which the atmospheric physicist C.G. Walker stated: "There appears to be a problem with the helium budget of the atmosphere." Another scientist, J.W. Chamberlain, said that this helium accumulation problem "… will not go away, and it is unsolved."

Also see:

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Dissent against Darwin

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation

Answer 3

No one can prove the existence of God by means of science or empirical evidence. This must remain in the realms of faith.

The first creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) is quite readily proven as scientifically incorrect - not correct. We know for certain that the sun existed long before the earth, yet Genesis 1:16-17 says the sun was created after the earth and was placed in the firmament that divides the waters above from the waters below (Genesis 1:7), in other words just above the earth's surface. We know that plants could not survive for a fraction of a second in the deep cold of space, yet Genesis 1:11-12 tell us that grass and trees were created a full day before the sun was in place.

The second creation story (Genesis 2:4b-25) begins a genealogy that places Adam, as the first man on earth, just 6,000 years ago. This has been proven scientifically incorrect, as the first modern humans were on earth over two hundred thousand years ago.

As the early Church Father, Origen, had to say on this (On First Principles, 3.1.1): "Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed without the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of life' ..."

Answer 4

One must realize that only Genesis 1:1 refers to the initial creation (see John 1:1-3). From Genesis 1:2 forward, it speaks of God 'renewing' the face of the Earth (see Psalm 104:30) in 6 24 hour periods, resting on the 7th day.

Today, many scientist via numerous lines of evidence, have come to accept the 'Big Bang' theory of the Universe - it began out of nothingness and is ever expanding to this day. They have even detected the background radiation from the original explosion without any human witnessing the event. This is how 20th Century Physic describes the beginning. And a growing number of Biologist and Chemist are agreeing that life's origin is from 'clay tablets.' Even Geologist and Archaeologist models/discoveries have held up well under modern scrutiny. Indeed, the Laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis support the Bible account far more than Darwinism:

Job 38:4-7 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?