6 days Creation

[one.opinion]

48 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

From the Hebrew, the text says, "for in the day you eat thereof, dying you shall die."  The Hebrew indicates process of death.  In the moment Adam ate, he began the downward process of aging and deterioration that would end in his death.

This is not a literal interpretation of the words, you are interpreting in context. I agree that context is extremely important because all sorts of erroneous claims can be made by singling out verses. I also contend that the context of the first chapters of Genesis is not to give scientific details to the original audience, but to emphasize the sovereignty and power of God.

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

MUST? Why?

Well because it's a LITERAL Narrative.

You do understand that in Literature there are: Literal Narratives and Rhetorical (Figures of Speech) Narratives, right?

 

Quote

What do you make of verses like "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" (Leviticus 19:19) Do you ever wear cotton/poly blend shirts?

I don't think Shiloh is an Old Testament--read "Covenant"... Jew. 

 

Quote

The literal instructions are pretty clear here.

Yes, they surely were.

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I also contend that the context of the first chapters of Genesis is not to give scientific details to the original audience, but to emphasize the sovereignty and power of God.

1.  What's the Basis of your Contention...?

2.  Scientific Details??   What on Earth is "Scientific" details?

3.  What does the Scientific Method have to do with Genesis, pray tell?

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

4 hours ago, George said:

Just throwing some of my 2 cents in here.  I certainly don't want to steer off topic.  There was an Orthodox Jew -- a believer in BOTH a young earth -- and at the same time how the universe appears to be 15.5 billion years old using Einstein's theory of relativity.  If you've not watched it, it may help with how both may be true in your mind.

 

1.  Einstein's "theory of relativity" (both sr and gr) are bunk.  Scientifically Falsified by Quantum Mechanics and 3rd Graders everywhere.

2. Neither of Einstein's "Just-So" Story Mytho-matheMagical Scientifically Falsified Fairytales ever spoke to the "Age" of anything.

3.  The "Age" of anything is outside the purview of The Scientific Method.

4.  The current "Just-So" Story is 13.82 Billion years not 15.5 Billion years.  However, wait a few weeks...they'll come up with something new.

 

Quote

 

The second point is why the Creation written by Moses is so important?  In John, Jesus says this ...

John 5:46-47 For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me.   But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My Words? 

 

Yep, Speaks Volumes.

 

regards 

[Enoch2021]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

People here make the exact same arguments for a flat earth.

Well yea, what's your point?

 

Quote

At some point, our interpretation of God's Word needs to be adjusted to what we learn in science.

1.   What on Earth??  That's called Eisegesis...

Eisegesis: the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eisegesis

Strictly VERBOTEN in Christendom !!! 

 

2. Where's "IN" Science, pray tell...?

Please establish some type of Acumen for us...

What is Science....?

Post 'The Scientific Method'...?

Define then Post a Formal Scientific Hypothesis regarding *ANYTHING* then identify it's Parts...?

What is the goal of EVERY SINGLE Scientific Inquiry...?

What is a Scientific Theory...? What is a Scientific Law....?

 

regards 

[Guest shiloh357]

50 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is not a literal interpretation of the words, you are interpreting in context.

No, that is literal.  You apparently don't grasp the concept of a literal interpretation and what that means.

Quote

I agree that context is extremely important because all sorts of erroneous claims can be made by singling out verses. I also contend that the context of the first chapters of Genesis is not to give scientific details to the original audience, but to emphasize the sovereignty and power of God.

I am not claiming that it is giving a scientific account.  I am claiming that it is giving a correct historical account of the creation and is to be taken literally.

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  Begging The Question (Fallacy): 'those of us who are actually competent'.

 

I am not going to engage in pointless drawn out debates  with you.  This a thread about the age of the earth, not a flat earth debate.   There is already a thread for that issue elsewhere.   All other responses from you will be ignored from here on out.

[Enoch2021]

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I am not going to engage in pointless drawn out debates  with you. 

Yes because that "Point" of your feigned "Pointless" appeal, is unrecoverable and irreconcilable from your position. 

 

Quote

This a thread about the age of the earth, not a flat earth debate.

True.  But you had 'plenty' to say about it unchallenged...so it was my duty to even the balances.  

 

Quote

There is already a thread for that issue elsewhere.

Well "YOU" decided to share your 'Opinion' on it here.

 

Quote

All other responses from you will be ignored from here on out.

Well sure, you have no other recourse than to: cover your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and say "la la la" over and over again.

 

regards

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, one.opinion said:

People have been studying transcriptomes for 20+ years, I would say there has been adequate chance to study it. Of course there are new discoveries to be made, but again, a vast majority of scientists that study these things believe that there is indeed junk DNA, and quite a lot of it! Expert consensus really is important, there are definite limits to which the "appealing to consensus is a logical fallacy" argument is useful.

People have not been studying whole "transcriptomes for 20+ years", and certainly not the whole human transcriptome. People have been doing PCRs on RNA for "20+ years" - but only for targeted genes.  The next-gen sequencing technologies making full transcriptome sequencing possible has only been around for 10 or so years (and only broadly available since maybe 2010). So most studies on RNA only deal with known genes. That is because, until recently, it was presumed that they were the only genes of relevance.

Appealing to Consensus is always a fallacy because it represents a departure from logic. Combining this fallacy with another fallacy (Appeal to Authority/Expertise) does not make a claim any less fallacious.

So-called "junk DNA" relies on the same flawed logic as vestigiality - the assumption that if we don't know what something does, it must not do anything, and is therefore some evolutionary leftover. In the early days of the debate, this concept was necessary to overcome the implausibility of a ~3 billion base permutation of functional information arising randomly. So it was convenient, for a time, to point out,  "Well only about 2% of that is actually coding. The rest is junk - evolutionary leftovers". But now we know differently. As with claims of vestigiality, the claims of junk DNA are increasing coming undone through investigation.

[one.opinion]

 

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

People have not been studying whole "transcriptomes for 20+ years", and certainly not the whole human transcriptome. People have been doing PCRs on RNA for "20+ years" - but only for targeted genes.  The next-gen sequencing technologies making full transcriptome sequencing possible has only been around for 10 or so years (and only broadly available since maybe 2010). So most studies on RNA only deal with known genes. That is because, until recently, it was presumed that they were the only genes of relevance.

If you really want me to, I can dig out a January 1997 reference for you. The point is that although NGS certainly makes transcriptome analysis easier, this research really goes back 20 years. Human transcriptome analysis has advanced quickly with NGS capabilities. Fire and Mello received a Nobel Prize in 2006 for their discovery of RNA interference and some of their earliest well-publicized work goes back 10 years more. Tristen, there really is non-functional DNA in the human genome, and it is not a minuscule fraction.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Appealing to Consensus is always a fallacy because it represents a departure from logic. Combining this fallacy with another fallacy (Appeal to Authority/Expertise) does not make a claim any less fallacious.

Let's put a hypothetical out there. Let's say you are having some severe abdominal pain for several days and your family physician says you need to go to the ER. Imagine if 100 doctors do a thorough examination and get second and third opinions from other doctors. Ninety-nine doctors agree that you need to have your appendix removed. One doctor says "It looks like your appendix, but it is contrary to my world view, so I'm going to say it is your gallbladder, instead". Now, before you say anything, there's a major hole in my analogy because I haven't brought the authority of God's Word into this scenario, but according to your argument, this isn't needed. So... what part of your body would you like to have surgery upon?