Creation

In Genesis 2:24, after the creation of Eve, before Adam could have understood the concept of a father or mother, and before God had condemned Eve to even have children, he says, "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" In isolation, this does not seem to make sense.

Ancient Hebrew did not have punctuation, so it can, with some difficulty, be assumed that Adam stopped speaking when he finished saying, "Because she was taken out of man" and that the following words are narrative dictum, but even if given this meaning the words of Genesis 2:24 remain anachronistic. It can really only be explained by the manner of the development over time, of the creation story.

Another Answer:

For the above categories, dinosaurs are not important. The Bible records the history of physical life only as far back as the renewal of the earth in preparation for the creation of Adam and Eve. It does not speak of creatures that lived on the earth before that time (possible exception may be the 'behemoth' of Job 40).

Without divine revelation, and with so many geologic upheavals of the earth, there is no way of knowing for sure what these creatures were, what they actually looked like, when they existed or what purpose they served. Yet, the vivid and unbounded imaginations of man will continue to attempt to give an answer, which in my lifetime has changed several times.

Day by day, God created the universe and its contents (Genesis ch.1).God created the universe out of nothing (Exodus 20:11, Isaiah 40:28; Rashi commentary to Genesis 1:14; Maimonides' "Guide," 2:30).Note that the Torah, in describing the Creation, deliberately employs brevity and ellipsis, just as it does in many other topics. See the Talmud, Hagigah 11b.

• On day 1: God created the universe in general, light, and this Earth. The light was not the same as that of the sun. Rather, it was light that God created before the sun, and which emanated from a point in space without any physical source; like what we might term a "white hole."
  
• On day 2: God created the separation between the Earth and the upper atmosphere.
  
• On day 3: God separated the continents from the oceans, and created plants.
  
• On day 4: God created the sun, moon, and stars.
  
• On day 5: God created birds and fish.
  
• On day 6: God created animals and people.
  
• On day 7: God ceased creating, thereby creating the concept of rest.
  

See also:

Is there evidence for Creation?

Can you show that God exists?

Seeing God's wisdom

Genesis 1:6-8And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

This has been interpreted as 'sky' or 'space'.

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Gen 1:7 And God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. Gen 1:8 And God called the expanse, Heavens. And the evening and the morning were the second day. God divided the waters on Earth so that some were suspended above the atmosphere, like satellites today. The atmosphere of Earth was called the expanse, but it was also called "heavens." These heavens that were under the upper waters were obviously different from the "heavens" of verse 1, which were obviously the universal heavens created simultaneously with the "formless" and "empty" earth. By the way, in the Flood story in Gen 7:11, the "windows of the heavens" were opened up, obviously releasing the waters "above the expanse," which would have flooded the dry land.

God made the sky and ocean

• light (which was day and night)
• the Earth
• Food

Never.

Answer

Sorry, I'm afraid that aliens have long since taken over the earth. Only alien creatures would waste, pollute, and destroy a beautiful planet like earth. They're known as humans.

This is what is termed creation ex nihilo, which is simply the Latin theological term given for it. It means the same, 'out of nothing'. Hebrews 11:3 and other verses refers to the fact that God created everything. Thus it is understood that matter is not eternal and so it was created 'out of nothing' by almighty God in the beginning.

The term itself is not found explicitly in the Bible but is a logical deduction since the other alternative, the eternity of matter is indeed an unlikely possibility indeed. Apart from Hebrews, other verses which are relevant to this include: Psalm 33:6, John 1:3, Romans 4:17, 1 Corinthians 1:28 and of course Genesis 1:1 ff.

It is NAES

The punishment usually fits the crime, and this act of disobedience followed with instant knowledge of nakedness, covering their genitalia, a curse on the woman that she would now have pain during childbirth and her desire would be towards her husband. The curse on the man is that he would have to work hard to produce food from the ground.

Eve's 2 sons, Cain and Abel likely were twins, as she continued in childbirth before Adam had relations with her again.

Interestingly, neither Cain or Abel are listed in Adam's genealogy. (Genesis 5; Luke 3:38; Jude 14.)

Seth is listed as Adam's first son in his own image.

Was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a fallen angel that seduced Eve and she conceived? And seduced Adam?

Could this be the beginning of what made God so angry that following Genesis 6, when fallen 'sons of God', 'angels' had relations with human women, producing offspring, that he caused the great flood, preserving only Noah etc.?

Answer:

The above answer doesn't address the Question. The act of disobedience in the Garden of eden was the eating of the fruit of the tree which God forbade him (Adam) to eat.

Creation and evolution are most certainly notcompatible teachings. Some Christians, usually those who have been convinced by the alleged 'infallibility of modern science' and the fact of evolution decide it is possible/necessary to make a compromise view and have both. Such thinking ignores the nature of the Christian faith, which is based on the historicity of certain historical events as the resurrection, creation, flood etc. If one is free to disbelieve what the bible says about creation why not also disbelieve the amazing fact of the resurrection? Atheists are not slow to understand this:

Dr William Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University stated: '�¢ï¿½�¦ belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.' [in 'No free will'; in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999.]

In addition to this, many Christians do not think through the real meaning of accepting evolutionary teaching, which is a principal of 'nature red in tooth and claw.' The Genesis record of creation and the fall would clearly indicate first of all a very good creation (pronounced so by God) which was then cursed and spoiled by man's fall into sin. Accepting evolution and natural selection as God's creative method necessarily means the acceptance of death, pain and suffering as a normal part of life rather than intruders. What does this do to the promise in the book of Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." This is thus an insult to the goodness and love of God and also an insult to His wisdom, since evolution is a wasteful process requiring the death of many for progress.

As atheistic Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod said: '[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms �¢ï¿½�¦ The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.' [The Secret of Life, broadcast interview, 10 June 1978.]

In connection with the historicity of what Genesis tells us about the first man Adam and Paul's commentary in Romans: Paul of course assumed that a real historical Adam existed and fell into a real historical sin against God. He points out that Jesus is the 'second Adam' who has come to take away that sin (Romans 5:14 cf 1 Cor 15:22). If Adam, as evolution teaches, was not the first man who fell into sin, then Christ cannot be the second Adam to atone for a non-existent man and a non-existent fall. As Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion (page 253) explained:

"Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant." (emphasis in original).

To summarize: Belief in creation with all that that entails, and belief in evolution with all that it entails are definitely not compatible. Trying to make them compatible clearly shows a misunderstanding of one or both.

This is a very personal question, one that has no real objective answer. However I will try to give an answer from my own point of view:

I have been involved in science all my working life both in research in polymer technology and as a head of science in a UK high school for a large part of a 30-year teaching career. I am a chemistry graduate from a high-ranking UK university and a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry - equivalent to a second degree in real terms. I have taught Chemistry - and astronomy - for many years. I have written and published 4 books on various subjects. I therefore regard myself as intelligent - and an expert ( for want of a better, more modest word) in a subject that traditionally has been seen as being in conflict with religion (although now I disagree with this presumption).

At first, I came to believe in a God (with a capital 'G' unlike the question's version) through sheer logic and thinking. I weighed up the evidence, both from the Big Bang Theory, from nature, from the Bible, from other writings including writings by Christians, theologians, atheists and anti-religious authors, and I came to the conclusion that God really was there. However, as a Christian I had only merely started on my journey of faith.

It wasn't until much later that things really began to gel. After much study I then regarded myself as a believer in some sort of 'God', and began to read and study more about him (her? it?) to learn more and to discover the truth - whatever that meant. As I did, I felt closer and closer to a personal God made possible because of this historical figure Jesus Christ. So, ever the logical guy, I then made a commitment to find out more about Jesus, not only from the Bible, but also from other contemporary writings. The more I found out, the more I realised that I needed to find out even more. And the more I felt God calling me into a special relationship with him. I read a book called Who Moved the Stone? by Frank Morison (who wrote about the resurrection). I read C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. I read other books about the Christian faith. But no matter how much I read, I realised that instead of just putting my toe in the water to test the temperature, I needed to take the plunge and immerse myself entirely. So once I made a commitment to accept Jesus as my Saviour and to worship him as a Christian, life really made sense. Jesus himself said that he came to bring life in its fullness - and boy was he correct. Yes, difficult times still happen and there are still things in my life with which I am unhappy but life has not been the same since. I now know that God loves me (warts and all) and through Jesus enabled me to have an eternal relationship with him. If you would like to know more leave a message and I'll get in touch.

I appreciate that many who do not have a faith often put it down to social conditioning or the way they were brought up in their childhood. That may well be true in some circumstances, but nowadays, in a more secular society, the majority of new Christians come from a non-religious background, and hence social or family conditioning does not explain people's faith in God, later in life. There are many who have witnessed people from all walks of life and all ages becoming Christians later in life--even from non-religious, or even anti-religious backgrounds.

I notice too that this question hints at being rather arrogant - as if being 'intelligent' means that you have somehow outgrown the need to believe in God. Nothing is further from the truth. The vast majority of intelligent people throughout history were believers in God (Newton, Milton, Faraday and so on) as they were not only intelligent but wise. There are those whose arrogance is mistaken for intelligence, and whose pseudo-intelligence is mistaken for wisdom. They are fools, not only because they appear foolish to others, but they are fools to themselves as well.

I note too that this question was placed in the 'Creation' category. This may well mean that the asker has experience of Creationists who claim that Genesis is literally true. However, do not confuse belief in God with the belief in scripture as one's 'god'. Creationists who insist in the literal interpretation of Genesis have done more harm than good in the evangelisation of God's word. Genesis was never meant to be taken literally - not even by the ancient Hebrews. It is an allegorical poem, and, whilst it holds much truth, it should not be taken literally as some sort of 'scientific' or 'alternative' way in which the universe was created. Look at the Anthropic Principle instead - which is a scientific study of Creation which strongly suggests design within the formation of the universe.

So, from logic to faith, from religious study to a relationship with God, and from mere intelligence to, I hope, wisdom - that is why, as an intelligent person I believe in a God. As they say - don't knock it until you've tried it yourself.

I took the opposite path. As an intelligent child I believed in God and did not lose that belief until I was twelve. I believed in God because I was taught to do so, and because those I looked up to seemed to believe in God. I won't knock religion, but I have tried it. Sheer logic and thinking were what raised the first doubts. My loss of faith was not a childish whimsy or rebellion against adult authority, but strengthened as I reached adulthood and could even better understand the fallacies behind all religion.

I believe that intelligent people continue to believe in a god even as adults because of childhood conditioning. It seems that many children begin to question their faith around the same time as I did, and I suspect that if they maintain religious belief into their early teens, then they will remain believers for the rest of their lives.

If you were to ask this question to any Christian, whatever his or her intelligence, you would almost invariably receive the reply that the Christian has a real impression that God is very real. Christians often feel that they once walked around for years looking for something they could not find, and, as they believe that man was never meant to be separated from God, when they finally find what is missing, a personal relationship with God comes along that to the Christian is mind blowing and any emptyness in their lives disappears.

I first must state that I am not a believer in any faith based system or organization, but those who I know (and respect as intelligent people) who are believers in God are so because 1. It is a way to be involved with and in a community, 2. The stories and morals are comfortable to them, and 3. It is something they honestly and diligently searched for and found. My mother for example, an E.S.L. professor, told me, when we were having a discussion on this exact topic, that the god she envisions is not the catholic/christian god who lives in the sky, etc., but a force that has a direct care for her life and actions, but does not control them. She can not imagine a universe this stunningly beautiful and complex not having a God involved in it somewhere, where I feel it is even more beautiful and amazing without one. Contrary to popular belief, however, to her, God is not something which tries to change the lives of the creatures in the universe, but rather it is equally a result of the processes of said universe. It abides by the laws, does not bend or shape them.

The reason I think the belief in God is so appealing to people (including intelligent ones) is that having a God exist provides an answer to the nagging questions we ask ourselves everyday. I would gladly trade my knowledge of science and the awfully large size of our galaxy and universe for a belief so comforting as a benevolent creature who cares not only for all creatures, but for myself in specific. On a daily basis, I feel the weight of the question "How am I supposed to feel like anything I could possibly deem important actually be worth doing, considering how incredibly small I am, and how little time I have/will have occupied?", and I don't think human beings can in general operate on a day to day basis with the thought of their overall perspective in mind. On the contrary, however, having God love you and care about you offers you slack on the idea of how insignificant you are. You can go about your life doing important humanitarian or scientific work with the nagging questions of "Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? How was the universe created?" behind you, and most times, intelligent people are constantly asking themselves these questions and are obsessed with their place in the universe, and probably just come to a point of wanting to have some answers.

I also think that the reason God is so preposterous to those of us who don't feel a connection or reason for him/her/whatever, is because we feel most people see God in a dogmatic, simplistic way, when in reality, some of those who do feel God around them can separate the God they believe in and feel from the God that came from those who wrote books about it. In most cases, God can represent something very complex and individual, and whose definition does not reside in heaven, hell, angels, and all that other stuff. God can be an all-togetherness or a connection between themselves and all the other creatures of the universe, or even the Carl Sagan-like stardust-people-startdust connection with all time and space. In someways, in can take quite a bit of intelligence to understand the universe in such a way.

From nothing, nothing is created. The universe is something. Therefore, the universe came from something. From the same principle, something infinite also necessarily exists. Otherwise, you have the problem of infinite regress. Without something that is itself infinite and necessary, reality could not exist.

Nothing on Earth is infinite because the Earth had a beginning. Modern science demonstrates that the Earth is not infinitely old. Because the Earth had an original cause, Earth and its components are not infinite. It's difficult for most people to grasp the concept of infinity, because there is no examples of infinity on Earth. But remember, nothingness cannot create. Something must have always existed in order that anything exists.

Hence, logically you only have two options:

Option 1. Reality is illusory.

Option 2. Something "infinite" exists, and we are either apart and inseparable from that "infinite" or that "infinite" created reality as we know it.

Option 1 is impossible. "I think, therefore I exist." -Descartes. Even if the world around us is an illusion, our minds necessarily exist. This should be self-evident, and I won't explain further. If you need explanation, search Google for "Descartes cogito." That our minds exist implies that they are infinite or that they were created. We know our minds aren't infinite, because other minds like ours exist that we did not ourselves create. Therefore, our minds were created.

From the reasoning above, Option 2 is deductively true. Something infinite exists, and we are are either apart and inseparable from that infinity or the infinity created us. I am inclined to believe the former, because something which is infinite is limitless and all encompassing; hence, we are included in it.

Call this infinite thing "God", or whatever you like, but it necessarily is ultimately responsible for creating our minds, whether indirectly and purposefully or incidentally.

People give "God" human characteristics, such as 'goodness' and other qualities that we intuitively assume would be in its nature. Some people believe we will join it when we die. Whether the infinite plays such an active role in human affairs is debatable, but there is no denying that it exists.

I believe God ("the infinite") does play some sort active role. Else, why would it create a system like Earth that nurtures beings with free will free? Personally, I doubt it was an accident, but if you are skeptical of all things, this is philosophically debatable.

Most people who don't believe in a God form their beliefs from the principles of the scientific revolution / enlightenment, which stresses empirical evidence over other methods of proof. They forget to use logic. Logic is the foundation of all provable science. Empirical evidence will affirm or disprove many theories, but a good scientist will avoid an "argument from ignorance." Google search this phrase if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Finally, intelligent people are more likely to use logic and understand these abstract principles. They understand that a theory which rests upon a logical contradiction cannot possibly be a valid theory. I am referring to, "from nothing, nothing comes." If there is no God, ultimately reality isn't real or reality created itself. These beliefs ultimately lead to logical contradictions. Therefore, many intelligent people choose to believe the theory that not only does not lead to a contradiction, but is logically necessitated.

Jesus and other religious beliefs take no part in this argument. You can believe in God without being a Christian, Muslim, or whatever. But these stories are widely accepted for a reason outside of the divine. They teach important life lessons. Contrary to what many religious people will tell you, you don't have to believe that Jesus / Muhammad / whomever was sent from God in order to appreciate the message.

P.S. From nothing, nothing is created, bad argument, because that implys god cannot have been made either, as there would be nothing before him if you believe in him and said argument. So, logic fails.

yee