Genesis 1 Vs Big Bang/String/Inflation and Darwinism

[Tsun Tsu]

I am going to show you exactly WHY I believe Genesis chapter 1 is a LITERAL PART of the history of life on earth.

 

I believe in what is known as "Old Earth Creation", or OEC, in theological circles. This is pretty much the opposite of a YEC or young earth creationist.

 

The OEC doctrines can be easily traced back over 2000 years.  In the OEC belief it is widely held that the "days" of creation are also better translated as "AGES", which is backed by the fact that the word translated "day", when we see in the translation "the first day" "the 2nd day" etc., is also just as properly translated as AGE. These ages can represent very long time periods. The most extensive time period most likely between the Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. We propose a wide gap of time between the 2 verses hence the name of this thought is "Gap Theory". So between verse 1, When God creates the heavens and earth, and verse 2, we are talking an extremely long and yet undetermined about of time.

My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:

To put this in the simplest form, Genesis 1:1 initially mentions the creation of everything. From verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, Genesis 1 gves us a description of an "Extinction Event" unfolding before us, and then it also goes on to describe the subsequent healing of the earth and the rebounding of life on earth.

Cycles of life and extinction are in fact verified in scripture, just as they are verified in stone. We see it here in Genesis 1, Jeremiah 4, Ecclesiastes, Revelation, and certainly implications are made elsewhere.

 

Ecclesiastes 1
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

Revelation ends with the destruction of this current civilization/age and then the subsequent healing of the earth once more for another cycle of life, just as it began in Genesis 1:

 

Quote:
Rev. 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

So the bible declares we do indeed have cycles of life and death upon the earth. Today, people in the OEC movement believe this very thing.

 

This OEC belief, as previously stated, can be traced back over 2000 years, and we believe it is the original intent in the earliest manuscripts. I am in very good company with SO many PHD's in various fields related to the subject

.

Genesis is one of the most poetic books in all of scripture and is valued as extremely sacred by more than one religion. I suggest that this is for good reason. It actually shows creation, then extinction, and then finally the restoration of life on earth... it shows both EVOLUTION and special creation.

A theory makes predictions that are TESTABLE... Is MY theory testable? Yes it is and it HAS been REPEATEDLY tested every time we find a fossil. And it PASSES those tests with flying colors whereas Darwin fails.

 

If this theory regarding the literal nature of Genesis 1 is to be tested, then MUCH of the testing of this theory has already been done for the last 150 years or more... through geology, archeology, as well as the fossil record. All we need do to test this theory is to compare it to all these records that have literally been written in stone and CANNOT be changed. We will test the theory against these findings right here in this thread.

To summarize, I believe Genesis 1 gives us an HISTORICAL ACCOUNT of an extinction event upon the earth, similar to the one we see with the asteroid impact at the Yucatan peninsula. I believe it further details the subsequent healing of the earth, and the re-establishment of life on earth.

To outline this belief and show it unfolds in Genesis 1, you can refer to this.

1) A proper translation of the Hebrew in Genesis 1, 1 and 2, says this:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth BECAME decimated and laid waste."

...The verbiage of Genesis 1 allows us to reference verse 2 to a time after the creation, in which the earth was laid waste and emptied. This checks with the fossil and geological records.

 

2) In extinction events that have spewed ash, debris, earth, and water into the atmosphere, such as the impact in the Yucatan, the Atmosphere becomes so filled with debris that the suns rays no longer reach the plants depending on photosynthesis. Then the plant eaters die... then the meat eaters. At this point, the first thing necessary to occur for life again to flourish is for the atmosphere to clear.

Genesis 1, on the first day or age, states that the special event occurring in the first age was the clearing of the atmosphere, to allow the rays of the sun to filter through. This checks with the fossil and geological records. More on this in a few moments...

 

3) We see in Genesis 1 that waters and the atmosphere were in a chaotic state and that eventual settling allowed some water to settle back down to the earth, while some water was left trapped within the atmosphere. We can see from the various geological records, that we have certainly seen times when the water levels of the earth have varied drastically, and polar caps do not always explain this. This checks with the fossil and geological records.

 

4) Genesis 1 refers to EVOLUTION and was the ONLY ancient document to declare Evolution of the animals of the earth. It states evolution AS A FACT 3500 years before Darwin. This CERTAINLY checks with the fossil and geological records.

 

5) Genesis 1 goes on to tell us that man is unique among the rest of the animal kingdom. Genesis 1 tells us that God gifted man with the ability to dominate and take rule and dominion over the earth. It is easy to see our intelligence and body style allows for a lot of intellectual and technological advancement, but WHAT is behind this sudden JUMP of our species over all others? WHY are we so far above the rest of the animal kingdom that we would appear to be like gods?

 

We find one clue on a genetic level and we are unique among ALL other primates partially because of our 2nd chromosome, which, genetic scientists tell us deals specifically with intelligence.

Every primate has 48 chromosomes in 24 base pairs... EXCEPT for man, who only has 46 chromosomes in 23 base pairs.

The mystery of our 2nd chromosome is that it actually has the appearance of having been fused with another chromosome. So somehow we apparently DEvolved into a simpler form, and yet we gained superiority, Evolving in intelligence.

This adds EVEN MORE to the credibility of taking Genesis 1 literally, recognizing it to be describing our last major extinction event, and the subsequent restoration of life on earth.

 

Now... Can I show that the bible actually says the earth BECAME destroyed and laid waste? Yes and I can show also this view goes back over 2000 years.

http://ucg-canada.org/booklets/BT/versesofgenesis.asp

 

 

The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

Yet this interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years, as pointed out by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2.

The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, rendered Genesis 1:2 with an Aramaic expression Dr. Custance translates as "and the earth was laid waste" (1988, p. 15). The original language evidently led them to understand that something had occurred which had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2, "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering...of it was taken in hand?' (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, part 1, chapter 6). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology embraced an ancient origin for the earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless.

 

And
http://www.scripture4all.org/ ,,, then click into "Hebrew interlinear" and then click into "Genesis 1".

 

In the Above link you will find it actually IS interpreted as "BECAME" destroyed in one ancient translation of the Targum.

Then by going here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...c=1&t=KJV&ss=1

You can see the corresponding number for the words "Was" "without form" and "void".

Here you see the word translated "was" is also properly understood to mean:

Quote:
to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

 

We see "without form" is also properly understood as

Quote:
wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)

and void we see is also properly understood as

Quote:
emptiness, void, waste

To further show that "the earth BECAME destroyed" is the intended translation:

"Qal"

"Qal", Was = to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
to come about, come to pass
to come into being, become
to arise, appear, come
to become
to become
to become like

Without form = wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
place of chaos

Void = emptiness, void, waste

So then we see without question that Genesis 1, 1 and 2 can be meant to say in the Hebrew, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth BECAME decimated and a wasteland."

So... it has to be said that so far this is exactly what we are told in the fossil and geological records.

Ok... now Im going to lay another layer of information on top of the first. First I want to lay out a little more order to my theory/view, and then talk about what strata and the fossil record teaches us.

 

Past extinction event healing patterns

1) The earth is laid waste

2) This earth has certainly seen extinction events which filled the atmosphere with water, debris, earth, and ash, causing photosynthesis to cease, starving the plant eaters and then starving the meat eaters.

3) Inevitably the atmosphere ALWAYS began to clear. It MUST clear in order to allow photosynthesis to begin again on a mass worldwide scale.

4) Inevitably life began to flourish in the seas.

5) Inevitably grasses and herbs began to flourish.

6) Inevitably the atmosphere clears to the point that the heavenS, as in the stars the sun and the moon, can be seen and distinguished clearly.

 

Here I will begin to lay out the evidences for my theory.

Simply as a reminder, My theory is that Genesis 1, begins in verse 2 to relay to us a brief history of an extinction event and the subsequent clearing of the atmosphere and healing of the earth.  This is a very testable theory.  When we test for the big bang/string/inflation, we don't test these theories directly. Using scientific procedure we have made predictions regarding eh theories, and tested them against observation.  In this same way, my theory that God created everything and Genesis 1 describes an extinction event allows us to make predictions in regards to the details of Genesis 1, predicting that the details will match the fossil and geological records. Now we just need to lay them side by side and see if the theory matches the observations we can take advantage of.

Testing:

 

Test 1: If this holds any water, then the first thing we should be able to verify VERY quickly whether or not this earth has ever undergone an extinction event.

Result: I believe that there is nearly 100 percent agreement within the scientific community, that this earth has endured extinction events. Geology AND paleontology PROVE that this earth has seen extinction events... My theory regarding Genesis 1 holds up under this point. This test against the facts in stone verify Genesis 1.

Test 2: This described event indicates that the atmosphere was cluttered and darkened to the point no light could filter through. A large abundance of Water also was mixed in with the description of contents within the atmosphere. This is tested again according to the same evidence indicating mass extinction events in the past.

Result: It is quite evident for instance because of the crater in Yucatan, that this earth has seen MULTIPLE extinction events and that some of these events would have erupted large amounts of water into the atmosphere, along with earth and ash and etc, and that this indeed went on to possibly be the cause for the extinction of the dinosaur. There certainly is no disagreement within the scientific community that this earth has seen disaster that darkened the skies, killed off all plant life, starving out the plant eaters, and then starving out the predators. Genesis 1 in no way conflicts with and is verified.

Test 3: Now regarding the atmosphere placed between the waters we see in the 2nd day, we can see that waters settled below and around the atmosphere. This is nothing new at all. We see example of this many times. A recent giant planet was recently found with strange plasma like water hanging into the lower levels of the atmosphere, while another dwarf planet was recently found with an enveloping water vapor layer.

Result: Again we verify that this indeed is not an extremely unusual occurrence, it is not at all outlandish, and we do observe in nature, this event taking place around us elsewhere.

Test 5: We should be able to expect basic plant life, both marine and on land, to begin to flourish, now that the earth begins to warm and a bit of life begins to allow photosynthesis to give us back our paradise.

Result: This is the exact order given to us in the passages of scripture, and it is the correct order shown in the fossil record. Genesis 1 is calling correctly the order we see in stone.

Now on the 4th day or age, many people look at this and think it means the sun and moon were created on the 4th day. We disagree... We recognize that since we saw the PLURAL "heavenS" created before this first age, and that we saw LIGHT during the 2nd age, this is simply a poor translation of the literal hebrew poetry.. He is causing them to appear as opposed to actually creating them at this point. They were created with the "heavens". Accepting then that God simply "caused the sun and moon to appear" which is literally what the Hebrew states, we recognize this as simply the clearing of the atmosphere to the point that the heavens can be distinguished.

Test 6: Most amazingly during the 5th age we see EVOLUTION. We see that after this extinction event, and after the light could once again begin to filter through, life begins to spring forth from the oceans. Genesis 1 states that life began evolving in the seas first and that even the birds descended from the sea:

 

Quote:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his 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 fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

...IF this is true, then we should be able to note evolution in nature and in the fossil record. (nudge nudge wink)

SO... how many times has this alone been tested? How many times have fossil finds shown us that life began in the water and evolved from there? How many? Sure there are a lot of connections that CANNOT be made or have not been made, but consensus is that life began in the seas and evolved... I can produce the consensus of NEARLY EVERY major scientist in this area. This is one of the best tested theories in science.

I can literally produce hundreds of fossil finds that verify it.

The only problem IS, they arrived to this consensus 3500 years after Genesis 1 stated it as a very bold fact.

Sudden explosions of life coming out of nowhere

http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...e...aeontol...

 

 

 

AMONG the mysteries of evolution, one of the most profound is what exactly happened at the beginning of the Cambrian period. Before that period, which started 541m years ago and ran on for 56m years, life was a modest thing. Bacteria had been around for about 3 billion years, but for most of this time they had had the Earth to themselves. Seaweeds,
jellyfish-like creatures, sponges and the odd worm do start to put in an appearance a few million years before the Cambrian begins. But red in tooth and claw the Precambrian was not—for neither teeth nor claws existed.

Then, in the 20m-year blink of a geological eye, animals arrived in force. Most of the main groups of the animal kingdom—arthropods, brachiopods, coelenterates, echinoderms, molluscs and even chordates, the branch from which vertebrates went on to develop—are found in the fossil beds of the Cambrian. The sudden evolution of this megafauna is known as the Cambrian explosion. But two centuries after it was noticed, in the mountains of Wales after which the Cambrian period is named, nobody knows what detonated it.

Again... NOBODY KNOWS what detonated this Cambrian explosion. Now we must reason that when theory departs from unchanging stone records, we need to begin to reconsider certain dogmas. The fossil record is our WITNESS... to what really occurred. WHERE did this sudden explosion of life come from?

The records in stone teach us that Darwin was WRONG about gradualism that he held so stubbornly to. Explosions HAVE come seemingly from nowhere... miraculously.

Now lets look at Genesis 1 again:

Quote:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his 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 fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

NOTE the word ABUNDANTLY. Not only is Genesis 1 the ONLY ANCIENT DOCUMENT IN HISTORY to declare an evolutionary process, until Darwin, and not only did it teach as we know today, that life began in the seas, It DECLARES sudden explosions of life, JUST as we see in the Cambrian. DARWIN did NOT do this and this was where he and Huxley failed. They postulated a very long and very slow process of life evolving over hundreds of millions of years. This SIMPLY IS NOT what we find written in the fossil record. Sure life evolved, and sure it took time, but for some unexplained by science reason, life EXPLODED before it "evolved". Genesis 1 nails this on the head. 3500 years before Darwin and Huxley... and the fossil records prove Genesis 1 to be correct about the sudden explosion of life... Darwin and huxley, falsified in this aspect of the theory, Genesis 1, Verified.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e...ambrian...

 

 

 

LIFE on Earth experienced a singular revolution just over 500 million years ago. In a geological blink of an eye, most groups of the animal kingdom appeared in the Earth's oceans and then diversified. The acquisition of skeletons, the advent of predation and the rise of complex ecosystems all occurred in what's known as the Cambrian explosion of marine animals.

Life took such a giant leap forward in abundance and complexity during the Cambrian that the rock record itself was indelibly changed. Long before geologists knew the precise age of the Earth, they could divide its history into two parts: the first 4 billion years, known simply as the Precambrian, followed by the Phanerozoic, meaning "visible life", which includes the Cambrian right up to today.

Evolutionary change isn't supposed to happen so abruptly, at least not according to Charles Darwin.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgray/Evol322/Chapter18.pdf

 

Quote:
Darwin was a gradualist
• Expected evolutionary change to be slow
and continuous
– Predicts many many intermediate forms
• Many of course have been found in major groups
– But many fossil morphological species
• Appear suddenly in fossil record
• Fewer transitional forms than you might expect
• Darwin attributed stasis to incomplete fossil
record

 

http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-p...for-evolution/

 

 

Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps in particular that should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single-cell organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (which contain the first appearance of varied multi-cell life), sponges, clams, trilobites, starfish, etc., are found without the required evolutionary ancestors.

The gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, which insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.

 

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/pr...sil-record.htm

 

 

 

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:

...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

 

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

 

 

 

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…

So we see that Darwin/Huxleyism sect of evolutionist has it wrong. We see that Genesis 1 is STILL ahead of its time. Genesis 1, verified again.

The Cambrian EXPLODED out of nowhere. Darwinism did not predict this... Darwinism predicted a much slower rate of evolution. The wording of Genesis 1 shows however that this is exactly what we should find in the fossil record. If one were to predict that Genesis 1 is an actual history, then they could predict this is exactly what we would find in the fossil record. And this is certainly what we then observe. Genesis is verified and Darwinism swings and misses when it comes to the Cambrian.

 

Now... this was a nutshell and we can fill in the spaces. We also have to tackle the Big Bang and String and inflaitonary theory, as this is the standard model of the universe.

 

The current model of the universe utilizes the big bang, string theory, and inflaitonary theory. The string theory comes in attempting to fix the shortcomings of string, which simply was not working out mathematically. How does our current model of the universe fare in its testing?

 

From http://io9.com/5714210/string-theory...erimental-test

 

Quote:
String theory fails first major experimental test

 

From: http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...d-lhc-physicis...

 

Quote:
Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists.

Researchers working on the Compact Muon Solenoid team have been crunching numbers to test a form of string theory that calls for the creation and instant evaporation of miniature black holes. They report that the telltale signs of these black holes are disappointingly absent, however.

And again... Another failure...

http://www.science.slashdot.org/stor...ould-spell-tro...

Quote:
"Paul Steinhardt, an astrophysicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, and colleagues have posted a controversial paper on ArXiv arguing, based on the latest Higgs data and the cosmic microwave background map from the Planck mission, that the leading theory explaining the first moments of the Big Bang ('inflation') is fatally flawed. In short, Steinhardt says that the models that best fit the Planck data — known as 'plateau models' because their potential-energy profiles level off at relatively low energies — are far less likely to occur naturally than the models that Planck ruled out. Secondly, he says, the news for these plateau models gets dramatically worse when the results are analyzed in conjunction with the latest results about the Higgs field coming from CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Particle physicists working at the LHC have calculated that the Higgs field is likely to have started out in a high-energy, 'metastable' state rather than in a stable, low-energy configuration. Steinhardt likens the odds of the Higgs field initially being perched in the precarious metastable state as to those of dropping out of the sky over the Matterhorn and conveniently landing in a 'dimple near the top,' rather than crashing down to the mountain's base."

In other words, the Higgs data doesnt resemble standard predictions made by inflation. The data, more resemble plateau models... but then the Particle Physicists at CERN have noted that plateau models have problems of their own that prevent them from being verified... In other words again, the predicted models do not fit the observations... they are totally failing in every test in every respect.

Remember that string touted itself as "The theory of everything", by greats like Alan Guth and Michio Kako. They amazed the word with their claims, yet Kako admits that string followed no scientific method whatsoever. It claimed to answer the mystery of what banged in the big bang... it claimed to answer several of the big bang's inconsistencies.

But... we can bury the theory of everything now... and BB has lost any hope of answering these problems... as Guth and Kako both admit, String is the only game in town trying to answer these inconsistencies... and now string as you can see, has not just one, but REPEATEDLY been falsified..

http://planetsave.com/2012/12/03/sup...der-tests-phys...

Quote:
‘Super Symmetry’ Theory Fails Collider Tests – Physicists Must Seek New ‘Theories of Everything’

...The theory posited ‘super partner particles’ — exotic particles that accompany every known particles and what provide the ‘symmetry’ in super symmetry — that would indirectly confirm such controversial ‘New Physics’ theories as String Theory.

But with recent high energy collision experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) producing (most likely) the fabled Higgs Boson — but none of the partner particles expected to appear within the energies ranges utilized — physicists are now having to reconsider one of their most prized theoretical models of the universe.

SUSY Fails the Test

According to physicist Mikhail Shifman, a once enthusiastic advocate of SUSY and author of an essay published on arXiv.org,, “…nature apparently doesn’t want it. At least, not in its original form.”

 

 

So yes, String has been repeatedly falsified, and whats worse, Great notable scholars who were for decades proponents of string, are now it's biggest detractors and skeptics.

It gets worse for BB and string... Because of certain observational inconsistencies with both hypotheses, they had to assume that there were obviously differences between the model and what is actually observed. To fill in THIS gap the pull out another untestable hypothesis from their bag of endless imagination that just keeps failing... Dark matter and dark energy

 

Edited November 16, 2014 by Tsun Tsu

[Guest]

AMEN~!

 

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 1 Corinthians 6:24

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

========================================================================================================================

 

I knew they're had to be something we disagreed about (There's a metric ton!).  As for big/bang/string/inflation/evolution..... those are laughable and demonstrable fairytales.

 

 

As for OEC, you have many many problems.

 

1.  This "Gap Theory" has already been Thoroughly Refuted, Here: 

 

2.  You need a local vs GLOBAL Flood:  

 

3. The Geologic Column is also a demonstrable fairytale...

 

"The problem of exaggerated time scales resulted from the work of Nicolas Stenon, originator of geological principles in the seventeenth century. Stenon did not take into account the effect of a turbulent water current on the formation of strata.  His principles were based upon his observations but since no hydraulic laboratories existed at the time his principles were not tested experimentally.

Our experiments on the formation of strata are fundamental because they demonstrate, ‘inter alia’, that in a continuous turbulent current many superposed strata form simultaneously and progress together in the direction of the current; they do not form successively as believed originally. These experiments explain a mechanism of strata building, showing empirically the rapid formation of strata."

Guy Berthault (Sedimentologist).  Source: http://www.sedimentology.fr/

 

 

Along with Polystrate Fossils, that take the Geologic Column to the Woodshed....

 

 

 

      

 

    

 

 

4.  Every single last "scientific" proof of "Age" is a Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO.  You can't TEST past events; Ergo, falls outside the Scientific Method; Ergo...is not "science".

 

 

 

I'll deal with a couple that you've laid out....

 

 

In the OEC belief it is widely held that the "days" of creation are also better translated as "AGES", which is backed by the fact that the word translated "day", when we see in the translation "the first day" "the 2nd day" etc., is also just as properly translated as AGE.

 

 

Baloney.

 

"yom". When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of about 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morning”, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. There were plenty of words that God could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, yet He did not use them.

 

You also have a MAJOR problem, Here....

 

(Exodus 20:11) "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."

 

Do you endorse this Scenario....

 

 

??

 

Was there Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns before Adam?  If yes, you just took the Doctrine of Salvation and the "Kinsmen Redeemer" to the Woodshed.

 

4) Genesis 1 refers to EVOLUTION and was the ONLY ancient document to declare Evolution of the animals of the earth. It states evolution AS A FACT 3500 years before Darwin. This CERTAINLY checks with the fossil and geological records.

 

 

Huh?  

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

Please validate this then reconcile it with Scripture......?

 

 

The fossil record??  Fossils/Paleontology isn't "science"!  Can you please show the Independent Variable of any TEST with fossils?  Is it the angle of the shovel or they're eyelids?

 

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

 

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life.

 

 

 

The mystery of our 2nd chromosome is that it actually has the appearance of having been fused with another chromosome. So somehow we apparently DEvolved into a simpler form, and yet we gained superiority, Evolving in intelligence.

 

 

This is a crock.  I had to go Waaay back in my sources to even find this.

 

One of the major problems with the fusion model is that, within the 20- to 30-kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site, there is a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats, and those that are present are mostly independent monomers, not tandem repeats.

"The putative fusion site is ‘highly degenerate’ and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed."

Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes, Genome Res. 12:1651–1662, 2002

 

Other issues....

 

The proven stability of the Y-chromosome compared to the rest of the human genome, combined with the large differences between human and chimp, is an insurmountable enigma for the human–chimp common ancestry paradigm....

 

Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.)

“For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."

Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007.

 

Let me Translate....Baloney!

 

Lets pile on....

 

Haldane’s Dilemma recognizes the problem for evolutionists of getting genetic changes in higher organisms, especially those which have long generation times. Due to the cost of substitution (death of the unfit) of one gene for another in a population, it would take over 7 x 10*11 years of human–like generations to substitute the 120 million base pairs. Or in 10 million years (twice the time since the chimp/human common ancestor is alleged to have lived), only 1667 substitutions could occur, or 0.001% of the difference. There has simply been insufficient time for ape–like creatures to turn into humans. And this understates the problem by assuming perfect efficiency of natural selection and ignoring deleterious processes like inbreeding and genetic drift, as well as problems posed by pleiotropy (one gene controlling more than one characteristic) and polygeny (more than one gene controlling one characteristic)—most real genes.

W.J. ReMine, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993), pp. 215–217.

 

 

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history.

 

 

And it's a Logical Fallacy----- Appeal to Tradition/Appeal to Age. Just because something has a "Long History" offers No Veracity whatsoever to any of it's tenets.

 

 

It would take way too much time to Refute every postulate you wheeled out here...I think this will do for now.  You have some work to do.

[Tsun Tsu]

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================================================

 

 

 

I knew they're had to be something we disagreed about (There's a metric ton!).  As for big/bang/string/inflation/evolution..... those are laughable and demonstrable fairytales.

 

 

As for OEC, you have many many problems.

 

1.  This "Gap Theory" has already been Thoroughly Refuted, Here: 

 

Hello Enoch.

 

1)  You cant refute that the early Targum I presented shows the translation The earth "BECAME" wasted. Nor can it be refuted that it is many times rendered as became from the Hebrew elsewhere.

 

 

 

2.  You need a local vs GLOBAL Flood:  

 

Quite the contrary. I believe in a global flood, youre preaching to the choir.  My belief does not "need" a local flood as compared to a worldwide flood.

 

 

 

3. The Geologic Column is also a demonstrable fairytale...

 

"The problem of exaggerated time scales resulted from the work of Nicolas Stenon, originator of geological principles in the seventeenth century. Stenon did not take into account the effect of a turbulent water current on the formation of strata.  His principles were based upon his observations but since no hydraulic laboratories existed at the time his principles were not tested experimentally.

Our experiments on the formation of strata are fundamental because they demonstrate, ‘inter alia’, that in a continuous turbulent current many superposed strata form simultaneously and progress together in the direction of the current; they do not form successively as believed originally. These experiments explain a mechanism of strata building, showing empirically the rapid formation of strata."

Guy Berthault (Sedimentologist).  Source: http://www.sedimentology.fr/

 

 

Along with Polystrate Fossils, that take the Geologic Column to the Woodshed....

 

 

 

      

 

    

 

Wow... dude you assume WAY too much.  Who said I date the geological tables in the same way that is generally accepted?

Again, this has no bearing whatsoever on the theory that this, Genesis 1, is referring to an extinction event and the restoration of life on earth.

 

 

 

 

4.  Every single last "scientific" proof of "Age" is a Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO.  You can't TEST past events; Ergo, falls outside the Scientific Method; Ergo...is not "science". 

 

Observing and theorizing that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event and the restoration of life on earth, and then predicting this will fit the fossil record, IS science.  It also stands unfalsified (therefore so far verified) when compared to the fossil record.

 

 

 

In the OEC belief it is widely held that the "days" of creation are also better translated as "AGES", which is backed by the fact that the word translated "day", when we see in the translation "the first day" "the 2nd day" etc., is also just as properly translated as AGE.

 

 

 

 

Baloney.

 

"yom". When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of about 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morning”, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day. There were plenty of words that God could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, yet He did not use them.

 

To say this cannot be rendered as "Age"is to be wrong. Sorry and no offense, you just are.

 

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3117.htm

age (8), age* (1), all (1), always* (14), amount* (2), battle (1), birthday* (1), Chronicles* (38), completely* (1), continually* (14), course* (1), daily (22), daily the days (1), day (1115), day of the days (1), day that the period (1), day's (6), day's every day (1), daylight* (1), days (635), days on the day (1), days to day (1), days you shall daily (1), days ago (1), days' (11), each (1), each day (4), entire (2), eternity (1), evening* (1), ever in your life* (1), every day (2), fate (1), first (5), forever* (11), forevermore* (1), full (5), full year (1), future* (1), holiday* (3), later* (2), length (1), life (12), life* (1), lifetime (2), lifetime* (1), live (1), long (2), long as i live (1), long* (11), midday* (1), now (5), older* (1), once (2), period (3), perpetually* (2), present (1), recently (1), reigns (1), ripe* (1), short-lived* (1), so long* (1), some time (1), survived* (2), time (45), time* (1), times* (2), today (172), today* (1), usual (1), very old* (1), when (10), when the days (1), whenever (1), while (3), whole (2), year (10), yearly (5), years (13),

 

It is certainly NOT problematic whatsoever to understand yom as "age" "very old" "perpetually" "lifetime" "Forever" "forevermore" etc.

 

 

 

You also have a MAJOR problem, Here....

 

(Exodus 20:11) "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."

 

How is that a problem if we understood it in the first place to be saying "age" or "forever"?  We simply understand the same word the same way the second time.

 

 

 

 

 

Was there Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns before Adam?  If yes, you just took the Doctrine of Salvation and the "Kinsmen Redeemer" to the Woodshed.

 

Dude you should really ask questions before deciding what I believe for me... All I'm going to do is say youre wrong here... you can ASK me what I think about this

 

 

4) Genesis 1 refers to EVOLUTION and was the ONLY ancient document to declare Evolution of the animals of the earth. It states evolution AS A FACT 3500 years before Darwin. This CERTAINLY checks with the fossil and geological records.

 

 

 

 

Huh?  

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

Please validate this then reconcile it with Scripture......?

 

 

The fossil record??  Fossils/Paleontology isn't "science"!  Can you please show the Independent Variable of any TEST with fossils?  Is it the angle of the shovel or they're eyelids?

 

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

 

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life.

 

Dude your assumptions just get wilder and wilder.  Did you even read what I wrote?  Did I not EMPHASIZE STRONGLY the absence of transiationals in the fossil record?  What did I say?  I said God CLAIMS the birds and EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH... came from the seas, therefore DECLARING evolution... HOWEVER... since the fossil record proves Darwinism WRONG. it ALSO SHOWS SPECIAL CREATION in that life EXPLODED BEFORE it evolved.

 

Now... you tell me what God said the birds were brought forth from.  Did He NOT say they were brought forth FROM THE WATERS? Do you BELIEVE Him when He states this?

 

 

The mystery of our 2nd chromosome is that it actually has the appearance of having been fused with another chromosome. So somehow we apparently DEvolved into a simpler form, and yet we gained superiority, Evolving in intelligence.

 

 

 

 

This is a crock.  I had to go Waaay back in my sources to even find this.

 

One of the major problems with the fusion model is that, within the 20- to 30-kb window of DNA sequence surrounding the hypothetical fusion site, there is a glaring paucity of telomeric repeats, and those that are present are mostly independent monomers, not tandem repeats.

"The putative fusion site is ‘highly degenerate’ and a vague shadow of what should be present given the model proposed."

Fan, Y. et al., Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site in 2q13-2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes, Genome Res. 12:1651–1662, 2002

 

Noo lol... the debunking is a crock... it in no way explains WHY humans have 46 chromosomes in 23 base pairs and why every other primate has 48 chromosomes in 24 base pairs... GENESIS 1 DOES explain that our intelligence was blessed to take dominion over all the earth, and the 2nd chromosome, which has an appearance of fusion DEALS with our intelligence.  These are facts, not theories

 

Now... quit ASSUMING you know what I believe, stop TELLING ME what i believe, and simply ASK

 

ONLY THREE questions...

 

1) from what did God bring forth the birds? 

 

2) Did He say the birds and EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH came forth from the waters ABUNDANTLY?

 

3) Do you believe Him when He states this?

Edited November 16, 2014 by Tsun Tsu

[enoob57]

Tsun Tsu your struggle to relieve yourself of the literal literary aspect of God's Word will not happen...

Simply The Lord 'The Living Word' you will stand before with either a twisted view by violating the

hermeneutic... As such evolution is not compatible with a literal Genesis chapter one case in point with the

literal 24 hour day after each a finished kind in seven literal days. Love, Steven

[Guest Teditis]

@ Tsun Tsu: If, in Genesis, a day were an age and God blessed the 7th day as Sabbath... are you saying He blessed an entire age?

[Guest]

 

Every Saturday (Sabbath)

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
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:

 

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. Exodus 20:8-11

 

I'm Reminded Of The Power Of The WORD

 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

 

Of The Almighty God, Jesus Christ

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

And My Soul Bows Down

 

The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4

 

With Aw And Love

 

LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him! Psalms 144:3

 

To Him

 

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8

[Tsun Tsu]

Tsun Tsu your struggle to relieve yourself of the literal literary aspect of God's Word will not happen...

Simply The Lord 'The Living Word' you will stand before with either a twisted view by violating the

hermeneutic... As such evolution is not compatible with a literal Genesis chapter one case in point with the

literal 24 hour day after each a finished kind in seven literal days. Love, Steven

 

Let me make something perfectly clear. What i relieve myself of is prejudice and my own inclinations. You charge me with intellectual dishonesty. I think the intellectually dishonest however, would be those who deny evolution is mentioned here in Genesis 1.

 

You see the words right in front of you. I dont have to defend "birds" and "every living thing that moveth" coming from the water.  God said it, I will therefore believe it, and this simply puts me in the fortunate position that it agrees also with the fossil record.

 

Please answer these 3 questions for me...

 

Do you believe the birds came from the seas? Yes or no, its a very simple question. 

 

Why do you choose to believe yom as a day here, but youre perfectly willing to accept it as age elsewhere? 

 

Why would you choose a belief that neither fits Gods word, nor the fossil record?

[Tsun Tsu]

@ Tsun Tsu: If, in Genesis, a day were an age and God blessed the 7th day as Sabbath... are you saying He blessed an entire age?

 

Surely you wouldnt think He couldnt bless an age... an early age of man, where we could learn an grow, and the entire world is blessed.

 

Look at the hebrew brother... look at the targum from around 1800 years ago... rendering it as becoming destroyed.  Look at the fact that it PERFECTLY fits the fossil record, in a way that even corrects Darwin. Fossils are evidence... written in stone, and they certainly do show Genesis to be superior to Darwinism.

I thank God that His word is so assuring and true, and I an have absolute faith in it.  I thank God that He has made Himself known to us even through nature.

 

God has played no games with us. Why believe something that is obviously so problematic, when the scriptures are completely harmonious with nature and records written in stone?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

===================================================================================================================

 

 

 

You cant refute that the early Targum I presented shows the translation The earth "BECAME" wasted. Nor can it be refuted that it is many times rendered as became from the Hebrew elsewhere.

 

 

 

Yes I surely can...

 

Source: Dr. Robert V. McCabe (Professor Old Testament Studies, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary):  http://www.oldtestamentstudies.org/my-papers/other-papers/recent-creationism/what-about-the-gap-theory/

 

 

C. Retranslating “Was” as “Became” to Support the Gap Theory

"Defenders of the gap theory argue that the verb “was,” in Genesis 1:2, is more accurately translated as “became” or “had become.” If these translation options are more accurate, then the gap theory is linguistically strengthened, at least on this point. By translating “was” as “became,” this indicates a transition in earth’s state has taken place, from its original state of perfection in v. 1 to a subsequent state of judgment in v. 2. The interpretation of hayetah as “became” has received wide support in fundamentalist circles through a note to this effect in the New Scofield Reference Bible (p. 752, note 2). Arthur Custance made a more recent refinement of this translation in a 1970 study. He has argued that the gap theory is better supported if “became” was translated as “had become.” Based upon the statistical analysis in his study, Custance attempted to demonstrate that the active meaning of the verb hayetah (“had become,” “became”) occurred more often than its stative meaning (“is”). In fact, Custance insists that his translation of Genesis 1:2 as “but the earth had become a desolation” (emphasis mine) is the crucial issue with the gap theory (p. 41). The bulk of his book and 13 appendices are devoted to making an attempt to prove this crucial issue.

Though Custance’s translation of “had become” as opposed to “became” may be somewhat of a refinement for the gap theory, his refinement is in reality a difference without a distinction, for both “had become” and “became” indicate that the earth’s condition had changed from a state of perfection in v. 1 to one of judgment in v. 2. Whether hayetah is translated as “became” or “had become,” neither translation is justifiable in Genesis 1:2. The only translation that can be consistently justified is the translation “was.” This translation can be supported in three ways. First, as I noted above, “was” is in an explanatory clause introduced by a waw disjunctive, connecting this verse with v. 1. In this type of clause, the verb hayetah is invariably translated as “was” (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, pp. 453–54, sec. 141g, i; for an insightful discussion and support of this translation, see Barr, pp. 58–72). The following examples will demonstrate how the verb hayah (third, masculine singular form of hayetah) is translated when it is used in an explanatory clause begun with a waw disjunctive: “Jonah arose and went to Nineveh…. Now Nineveh was [hayetah] an exceedingly great city” (Jon 3:3); “He showed me Joshua…. Now Joshua was [hayah] clothed with filthy garments (Zech 3:1–3). Second, the translation of hayetah as “was” finds early support from the Septuagint. In their rendering of Genesis 1:2, the Septuagint translators of the Pentateuch rendered this Hebrew verb as “was,” the imperfect form of eimi (to “be”). In contrast with this use of eimi, these same translators rendered various forms of hayah with ginomai (to “become”), where it was appropriate with the context (for a more elaborate the discussion on how the Septuagint supports this understanding, see Fields, pp. 97–100). Because of the semantic distinctives of the verbs eimi (to “be”) and ginomai (to “become”), the Septuagint provides early support for the rendering “was.” Third, the vast majority of lexicons and grammars support the rendering as “was” (see the documentation by Fields, pp. 87–112; to his list, we could also add the current edition of Koehler and Baumgartner, 1:244; and Waltke and O’Connor, 483–84). Whitcomb and Smith have appropriately summarized this evidence: “Hebrew grammars could be cited in abundance to the effect that a nominal clause (with no verb or else with a form hayah) as in Genesis 1:2, is the normal way to describe a state of being without any verbal activity or change of state” (p. 134). Therefore, the traditional translation of hayetah as “was” is the most accurate translation."

 

 

Who said I date the geological tables in the same way that is generally accepted?

 

 

Go ahead with "your" dates and explain Rationale.....?

 

 

that this, Genesis 1, is referring to an extinction event and the restoration of life on earth.

 

 

We must be reading Two Different Bibles.  Genesis 1 is a Creation Event.  Genesis 6 is the Extinction Event....SEE:  The FLOOD

 

 

Observing and theorizing that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event and the restoration of life on earth, and then predicting this will fit the fossil record, IS science.  It also stands unfalsified (therefore so far verified) when compared to the fossil record.

 

 

PRE-diction = "Before".

 

POST-Diction = "After".  All you have is "ad hoc" Post-Diction and a Begging The Question Fallacy----assuming the very thing you're trying to prove.  Prove the "Genesis 1 Extinction Event" FIRST.

 

Please show your prediction of this.  I need to see it CITED...with Date an Notorized!

 

Also, How does your "Genesis 1 Extinction Event" predict what we find in the Fossil Record Specifically....?

 

You're also upping the ante with a Formal Logical Fallacy; Affirming the Consequent:

 

If P then Q.

Q.

Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Genesis 1 Level Extinction event is true then we should Observe this in the fossil record.  

2. We observe (The Fossil Record)

3. Therefore, Genesis 1 Extinction Event is true.

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;

2) I feel very full;

3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?

 

Science and "Scientific Evidence" is in the business of Observing Phenomenon then "systematically" attempting to ascertain THEN VALIDATE Causation through Hypothesis Testing.  It follows this "Systematic Method"...

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

The 1st Step is there to ensure that the Inquiry is rationally based in reality so when you ask the question/tentative statement (Hypothesis).... it can then BE TESTED for validation.  It's also an ACTION (Verb) statement.  It's not just "Observe" it's "Observe a PHENOMENON".  When you look @ a Rock/Fossil et al can you please tell me what Phenomenon you're observing? (They're NOUNS).  And as I asked previously.....Please show the Independent Variables of your TESTS with fossils?  Are they the angle of the shovel or your eyelids?

 

 

To say this cannot be rendered as "Age"is to be wrong. Sorry and no offense, you just are.

 

 

Strawman (Fallacy) I didn't say that; I said this....

 

"yom". When it is modified by a numeral or ordinal in historical narrative (359 times in the OT outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day of about 24 hours. When modified by “evening and/or morning”, (38 times outside Gen. 1), it always means a literal day.

 

And your rebuttal is:  Na-uhh  

 

(Exodus 20:11) "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."

 

How is that a problem if we understood it in the first place to be saying "age" or "forever"?  We simply understand the same word the same way the second time.

 

 

Other than your Begging The Question Fallacy?.....The "Context" of the Previous Passages:

 

(Exodus 20:9-10) "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:  {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:"

 

Is HE telling the Jews to work 500 Million Year Periods then rest for 500 Million Years? 

 

Was there Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns before Adam?    If yes, you just took the Doctrine of Salvation and the "Kinsmen Redeemer" to the Woodshed.

 

 

Dude you should really ask questions before deciding what I believe for me... All I'm going to do is say youre wrong here

 

 

What does this look like to you...."Was there Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns before Adam?" A Question, Perhaps ??

 

And another "Na-uhh" rebuttal.

 

 

I said God CLAIMS the birds and EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH... came from the seas, therefore DECLARING evolution

 

 

Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).  How/why does something that was formed from the seas  =  "evolution" , Pray Tell....?

 

Define "evolution"....?

 

"EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH... came from the seas".

 

Ahhh, you sure about that??...

 

(Genesis 2:19) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

 

 

it ALSO SHOWS SPECIAL CREATION in that life EXPLODED BEFORE it evolved.

 

 

What on Earth?  Provide "Scientific Evidence" of evolution; SEE Scientific Method above.  I'll get the Popcorn  

 

 

Now... you tell me what God said the birds were brought forth from.  Did He NOT say they were brought forth FROM THE WATERS? Do you BELIEVE Him when He states this?

 

 

HE said right here, out the ground...

 

(Genesis 2:19) "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

 

(Genesis 1:20) "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

 

 

Looks like from the ground and from the water to me. I'm sure HE could bring them forth out of Absolutely Nothing if HE so chose.

 

I believe everything GOD says.

 

 

it in no way explains WHY humans have 46 chromosomes in 23 base pairs and why every other primate has 48 chromosomes in 24 base pairs

 

 

Strawman (Fallacy).  It wasn't intended to explain that...... it was intended to show that the "alleged" Fusion Site was a Fairytale...which it did.

 

Moreover, "Why" is a Philosophical/Theological question.

 

"Why" do Round Worms have 19,000 genes and Humans have 20,500 ??

 

"Why" is...

 

- Horse DNA is closer to bats than to cows?

- Mouse DNA is the same as 80% of the human genome?

- Sponges share 70% of human genes including for nerves and muscles?

 

 

Furthermore, I suppose we can say with equal "Scientific Vigor" that we evolved from these....

 

48 Chromosomes:

 

Dear Mouse

Potato

Tobacco

Water Buffalo

Laburnum, Yellow

 

Extrapolating from the Number of Chromosomes without discussion on Expression and Regulation is Tantamount to describing the number of lug nuts on the landing gear of aircraft in an attempt to discern whether it's a Piper Cub vs a B17 Flying Fortress!!  And I'm being kind.

 

 

"the 2nd chromosome, which has an appearance of fusion DEALS with our intelligence.  These are facts, not theories"

 

Has the appearance, eh?  And you call these facts and not theories???

 

Please list the genes and respective functions on Human Chromosome 2?  And identify the......Intelligence Gene ...??

 

 

"GENESIS 1 DOES explain that our intelligence was blessed to take dominion over all the earth"

 

No it says...(Genesis 1:26) " And 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

 

Man has Intelligence but Intelligence is not man.  Bees have Intelligence, what dominion do they have...flowers and hives?

 

 

"ONLY THREE questions...

 

1) from what did God bring forth the birds?

2) Did He say the birds and EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH came forth from the waters ABUNDANTLY?

3) Do you believe Him when He states this?"

 

1. out of the ground and the waters.  (SEE Above)

 

2. SEE #1 directly above

 

3. Yes