There are several examples of God taking plenty of time to bring something about. And thinking about the miraculous events through the OT, they are pretty much always using natural means. Eg the plagues of Egypt - locusts, frogs, etc. These are natural phenomenon that can happen. (Don't get me wrong, I totally believe God brought them about, but he is using means that skeptics could say are not miracles). The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (meteor shower), even the birth of Isaac - possibly some 25yrs after a child was promised - not immediate. But for God to create the universe over millions of years, why can't it be so?
We may have grown up being told that 6 days creation is a literal 6 days - but no one can say they KNOW for certain - just ideas and what we would LIKE it to mean. But it certainly CAN be literal, and it equally CAN be figurative. Our faith is not broken either way.
So then, given we DO have a geological record, we have something absolute we can work with for clues.
In a nutshell, sedimentary layers are a scrapbook of earth history. The deeper you go, the more layers you pass (and we can see layers all around us. I look at them often driving on the freeway cut through the sanstone in Sydney - you can see the patterns and colours change, and how the layers match up with the same patterns for sections that are miles apart - it is clear the lower sections were formed first, then the upper layers put down above them), the further back in time you are looking. Evolutionary theory uses this geological record (which contains the fossils) to come up with their hypotheses, and it has been seen (globally) that as you go further down through the different periods (eg. Jurassic, etc) the animal and plants species vary. Some are found in many layers (eg crocodiles) while some are relatively fleeting (certain dinosaurs). And the further down you go, eventually the plants and animals start to become much less complex and less diverse, until eventually there is no more. This is evidence. The conclusions are only theories, but comparing this evidence to the literal genesis account, it is difficult to match them up.
So Christians come out and say, 'no, no, all the animals were formed in an instant' - scientist can scoff. We give them cause to say Christians are deluded.
As an example that I heard from Dawkins (who I have a very low opinion of, btw - but here he does have a valid point), is the record of marsupials. I live in Oz, so I am very familiar with these - kangaroos, koalas, wombats, possums, tassie devils, etc. We have many, many marsupials in Australia and almost no other native land animals (hmm, except reptiles, birds, and the dingo (dog) likely introduced by the aborigines). Now, IF these were saved in Noah's ark, and then they migrated all the way to Australia from Turkey (mt's of Ararat), why is there no record of them anywhere in between. The only other place there are marsupials is the opossum (and maybe others) in the Americas. They aren't anywhere else. So how can that fit with the account of Noah's ark? (btw, scientists theorise they first appeared in S.America, and migrated via Antartica when there was a land bridge).
I do think about this occasionally, and I haven't worked out an answer yet. Was the flood local and not global? If so, then why the need for birds? It's a tough one. There must be an answer. The TRUTH must exist - and I totally believe it will make the fossil record true, AND the biblical account true. I just don't know yet.
And on the continents, there is clear evidence that these move around, and it can only be over a very long period. Take a look at Google maps and have a good look at the Atlantic. Notice how the coastline of Africa and Europe are an incredible match for North and South America. This theory was proposed a long time back (100yrs??) because of the close match of coastline, but it was ridiculed and ignored (see, science do want proof). But then with modern technology we are now able to see the land formations under the sea; and it was discovered proof that the continents are pulling apart. In Google Maps you can see all the stretch lines in the ocean floor, and the 'mid-atlantic ridge' - the line where new crust if formed as they move apart. Incidentally, it is in there that they are found that occasionally the magnetic alignment in the rock reverses, proving that at the time those sections were formed, the earth's polarity was inverted - and also proving the passage of time for it to come about.
Now I know in Peleg's day the 'earth was divided', but I don't believe this means the continents all tore apart in his lifetime. I think his reference is more likely meaning the land was divvied up between the various tribes. Political boundaries, not geological ones.
And one other point before I finish this ramble (well done, if you're still with me)..
Coal seams are another example. I was particularly interested in this when trying to work all this out, because young-earther's claim that coal seams and oil fields are all the result of the flood. But it is interesting to note that BEFORE the flood, Noah sealed the ark with 'pitch' (tar) which is a fossil fuel. But we have coal mines (many of those around where I live too) where we see many layers of coal - metres thick, and metres apart, one below the other - and not just one layer (as you would get from one flood event) but tens of layers, some beneath kilometers of rock. This is simply not plausible to be the result of a single event a mere 5000yrs ago.
So, were these a part of an instant creation on day zero? (ie. god created the earth in a flash, complete with coal seams and sedimentary layers, awaiting later discovery/exploitation) - i think not, because of the fossil records that comes with them. You can probably google around to find pictures of coal with undeniable images of leaves from the plants that were formed into coal. Proving coal is formed from ancient forests that have been buried. Layers of coal seams from regrowth on top of an existing layer, that itself is later buried, and so on. Is it possible that God created the fossil record (plant or animal) as well, in a flash? To me, that would be a lie.
Therefore, I believe that the fossil record is undeniable EVIDENCE of earth history. What we make of that is just theory, but as years and years of research have only added to the same picture, their theories become harder and harder to refute. Scientists do acknowledge that these are just theories, but ones that are just about undeniably proven.
(sorry for it being so long).
We may have grown up being told that 6 days creation is a literal 6 days - but no one can say they KNOW for certain - just ideas and what we would LIKE it to mean. But it certainly CAN be literal, and it equally CAN be figurative. Our faith is not broken either way.
So then, given we DO have a geological record, we have something absolute we can work with for clues.
In a nutshell, sedimentary layers are a scrapbook of earth history. The deeper you go, the more layers you pass (and we can see layers all around us. I look at them often driving on the freeway cut through the sanstone in Sydney - you can see the patterns and colours change, and how the layers match up with the same patterns for sections that are miles apart - it is clear the lower sections were formed first, then the upper layers put down above them), the further back in time you are looking. Evolutionary theory uses this geological record (which contains the fossils) to come up with their hypotheses, and it has been seen (globally) that as you go further down through the different periods (eg. Jurassic, etc) the animal and plants species vary. Some are found in many layers (eg crocodiles) while some are relatively fleeting (certain dinosaurs). And the further down you go, eventually the plants and animals start to become much less complex and less diverse, until eventually there is no more. This is evidence. The conclusions are only theories, but comparing this evidence to the literal genesis account, it is difficult to match them up.
So Christians come out and say, 'no, no, all the animals were formed in an instant' - scientist can scoff. We give them cause to say Christians are deluded.
As an example that I heard from Dawkins (who I have a very low opinion of, btw - but here he does have a valid point), is the record of marsupials. I live in Oz, so I am very familiar with these - kangaroos, koalas, wombats, possums, tassie devils, etc. We have many, many marsupials in Australia and almost no other native land animals (hmm, except reptiles, birds, and the dingo (dog) likely introduced by the aborigines). Now, IF these were saved in Noah's ark, and then they migrated all the way to Australia from Turkey (mt's of Ararat), why is there no record of them anywhere in between. The only other place there are marsupials is the opossum (and maybe others) in the Americas. They aren't anywhere else. So how can that fit with the account of Noah's ark? (btw, scientists theorise they first appeared in S.America, and migrated via Antartica when there was a land bridge).
I do think about this occasionally, and I haven't worked out an answer yet. Was the flood local and not global? If so, then why the need for birds? It's a tough one. There must be an answer. The TRUTH must exist - and I totally believe it will make the fossil record true, AND the biblical account true. I just don't know yet.
And on the continents, there is clear evidence that these move around, and it can only be over a very long period. Take a look at Google maps and have a good look at the Atlantic. Notice how the coastline of Africa and Europe are an incredible match for North and South America. This theory was proposed a long time back (100yrs??) because of the close match of coastline, but it was ridiculed and ignored (see, science do want proof). But then with modern technology we are now able to see the land formations under the sea; and it was discovered proof that the continents are pulling apart. In Google Maps you can see all the stretch lines in the ocean floor, and the 'mid-atlantic ridge' - the line where new crust if formed as they move apart. Incidentally, it is in there that they are found that occasionally the magnetic alignment in the rock reverses, proving that at the time those sections were formed, the earth's polarity was inverted - and also proving the passage of time for it to come about.
Now I know in Peleg's day the 'earth was divided', but I don't believe this means the continents all tore apart in his lifetime. I think his reference is more likely meaning the land was divvied up between the various tribes. Political boundaries, not geological ones.
And one other point before I finish this ramble (well done, if you're still with me)..
Coal seams are another example. I was particularly interested in this when trying to work all this out, because young-earther's claim that coal seams and oil fields are all the result of the flood. But it is interesting to note that BEFORE the flood, Noah sealed the ark with 'pitch' (tar) which is a fossil fuel. But we have coal mines (many of those around where I live too) where we see many layers of coal - metres thick, and metres apart, one below the other - and not just one layer (as you would get from one flood event) but tens of layers, some beneath kilometers of rock. This is simply not plausible to be the result of a single event a mere 5000yrs ago.
So, were these a part of an instant creation on day zero? (ie. god created the earth in a flash, complete with coal seams and sedimentary layers, awaiting later discovery/exploitation) - i think not, because of the fossil records that comes with them. You can probably google around to find pictures of coal with undeniable images of leaves from the plants that were formed into coal. Proving coal is formed from ancient forests that have been buried. Layers of coal seams from regrowth on top of an existing layer, that itself is later buried, and so on. Is it possible that God created the fossil record (plant or animal) as well, in a flash? To me, that would be a lie.
Therefore, I believe that the fossil record is undeniable EVIDENCE of earth history. What we make of that is just theory, but as years and years of research have only added to the same picture, their theories become harder and harder to refute. Scientists do acknowledge that these are just theories, but ones that are just about undeniably proven.
(sorry for it being so long).
