Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[The Barbarian]

No kidding.  Evolution is a change of allele frequencies in a population over time.  God used other things to make the Earth.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

No.  God spoke the universe and earth into existence.  Psa 33:9 says so, and even in the restoration of the planet, God simply spoke the restoration into existence.

No, that's wrong.   God says, for example, that the Earth brought forth living things.  

You're the perfect illustration that those who think they hate evolution don't have any idea what it is.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

What I know of it is all from Darwin's theories.  

So far, you haven't actually mentioned on thing in Darwin's theory.   Just so we know, what do you think are the four points of Darwinian theory?    If you can't find it, I'll tell you next post.

You've been misled there.   First, we've documented cases of irreducible complexity evolving.   Would you like to learn about those?

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

How about my fav, the flagellum motor.

You've been misled, again...

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

It is a highly complex molecular machine. Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that drive their rotation. The only way the flagellum could have arisen, some claim, is by design.

Each flagellum is made of around 40 different protein components. The proponents of an offshoot of creationism known as intelligent design argue that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so such a structure could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection. It must have been created instead.

In reality, the term “the bacterial flagellum” is misleading. While much remains to be discovered, we now know there are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, which vary considerably in form and even function.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

And what do you mean by irreducible comdplexity evolving?

One step at a time.   For example, Dr. Hall did a long-term study on bacteria, seeing if they could evolve a new enzyme system.    He provided a nutrient that they could not effectively use.    Over months of culture, the bacteria gradually evolved a new, increasingly effective enzyme.    But what Dr. Hall did not expect was the bacteria evolved a regulator.   Regulators make sure the enzyme is not produced unless the nutrient is available.   So the system now is: nutrient, enzyme, regulator.    If even one of these is missing, the system won't work.   It has become irreducibly complex.

Would you like to learn about the details?

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

So which type it is has no bearing on the FACT that it needs all 140+ parts to function.  

See above.  You got that one wrong.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Are you meaning evolutionary theory as proposed by Darwin or by yourself?  I remain confused as to how you use "evolve".

It's a perfect example of Darwin's four points.  But as I said, you have no idea what his theory actually says.   "Evolve" means "allele frequency of population changes" or as Darwin put it, "descent with modification."

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Maybe rather than using the word "evolution" just say that organisms build up an immunity to the drug.

Since it involves a change in alleles, that would require evolution.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

One can call that whatever they want.  It is an adaptation, not an evolution.

Evolution can be one kind of adaptation.   But not all adaptations are evolution, nor is all evolution adaptation.   You can get a sun tan.  That's an adaptation, but it's not evolution.    Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.   So a baby could be born with a new mutation that for example made them resistant to hardening of arteries and pass it down to his descendants.   That's adaptation and evolution.   Another baby could be born with a mutation that made slight change in a protein that didn't affect its function at all, and passes it on to his descendants.    That's evolution but not adaptation.  

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

Maybe rather than using the word "evolution" just say that organisms build up an immunity to the drug.

No.   For example, you could build up an immunity to a toxin.  That's adaptation,but not evolution.    But if a bacterium has a mutation that provides some immunity, and passes it on, that is adaptation and evolution.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

OK, I think I'm getting this.  You call "adaptation" evolution.  Well, I don't.  I don't agree your idea of evolution.

As I said, you really have no idea what evolution is.   Which is why you keep running into walls.   Why not go look it up?   Would you like me to explain the points of Darwin's theory?

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

I suppose you might describe the effect of regular overload of muscles as evolution

You might, because you don't have a clear idea of the difference between adaptation and evolution.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

But that doesn't explain a very old earth.

Not supposed to.  Evolutionary theory is only about how living populations change over time.   That's another of your confusions about evolution and the theory that explains it.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

If you don't agree with the YEC, all you've got is "evolution"

No.   Geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc. explain the early Earth.  But not evolutionary theory.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

My view provides a reasonable and rational explanation for why the earth is as old as it appears.

It's just a religious belief that can't explain a huge number of things in evidence.   That's why most Christians don't buy it.

 

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, Philologos said:

Would you mind sharing your thoughts on “what happened to earth…?” 

I appreciate your request, but since God didn't give any details and only the results, no one knows and every "thought" is an opinion only.  Or a "theory".  I'm sure we'll know all the details in eternity!

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

My view provides a reasonable and rational explanation for why the earth is as old as it appears.

It's just a religious belief that can't explain a huge number of things in evidence.   That's why most Christians don't buy it.

A "religious belief", eh?  My view comes directly from Scripture, whether you recognize that or not.  Doesn't matter.  

What does matter is what you posted at the beginning of your post:  "God used other things to make the Earth."

I've already addressed this bit of error, but I'll repeat;  God SPOKE the entire universe into being.  Psa 33:9 says so.  God used NOTHING to "make the earth".  He didn't "make" the earth either.  He CREATED the earth.  It's called "ex nihilio", which is to create from NOTHING.

As I already said, you are a biologist, and I am a bibliologist.  Big difference.

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by FreeGrace

[FreeGrace]

9 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's just a religious belief that can't explain a huge number of things in evidence.   That's why most Christians don't buy it.

Interesting that you mention what Christians don't "buy".  The reason is simple;  most have been trained to simply accept what they are taught in the pulpit, on Christian radio, or in the Christian books they read.

And it was the same for me.  Respect your "elders" and believe what they say.  There's been a whole lot of false doctrine out there for just this reason.

Most believers have no idea of the significance of Acts 17:11.  When that verse finally sunk in, it opened up a whole new world of understanding.  I do what the Bereans did with Paul's preaching.  They compared it with what the Bible said.

When that is done, all the false claims and teaching become clear.  Unfortunately, we live in an age where people would rather just believe what they were taught than actually think for themselves, or at least compare claims with what the Bible says.

I know what Gen 1:2 SAYS because I looked at how the verb and noun hayah and tohu are translated elsewhere and I got a whole new understanding of what Moses actually wrote.

You claim the very long process of "evolution" which is really nothing more than adaptation, and it doesn't explain Genesis 1.  

Mine does easily.

[The Barbarian]

59 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Interesting that you mention what Christians don't "buy".  The reason is simple;  most have been trained to simply accept what they are taught in the pulpit, on Christian radio, or in the Christian books they read.

Particularly the Bible.    That's the Christian book that pretty much rules out YE creationism.

59 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

You claim the very long process of "evolution" which is really nothing more than adaptation,

I just showed you why you're confused about adaptation and evolution.   Remember?

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.

Adaptation is a change in living things to make them more fit to the environment.   So...

Getting a sun tan is adaptation, but not evolution.

A new mutation that not useful is evolution but not adaptation.

A new mutation that is useful is adaptation and evolution.

Shouldn't be that hard to understand.   

Your revisions of Genesis are contrary to the Word of God.    Whatever you think they explain, it doesn't mean anything at all.

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

A "religious belief", eh?  My view comes directly from Scripture, whether you recognize that or not.

Your view is merely the changes you made to God's word to make it more acceptable to you.

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

I've already addressed this bit of error, but I'll repeat;  God SPOKE the entire universe into being.

God says otherwise.   He says that he used earlier creation to make many things.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

[Philologos]

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Right.  He gave us intelligence and curiosity to do it for ourselves

Well, He’s given us the ability to choose. And He’s given us two pursuits to choose: His Spirit or the Spirit of the World.
 

His Spirit= Tree of Life, eternal communion w/God based on what God has given us in writing.

World= Tree of Knowledge, gain knowledge possessed by God that He didn’t give us, yet.

Adam/Eve put the cart before the horse and filled up on knowledge w/o first learning the ways of God and living by them. Had they not chosen that tree, they (and we) would have then had access to both trees and lived eternally without having any curiosity, shame, misuse of knowledge, etc.

”Seek first the Kingdom of God…”(spirit)

”Do not conform to this world…”(knowledge)

 

[yes, I simplified that, but to make a point- we have a choice (& freedom) to pursue knowledge, but must understand that evil is a companion component of good. (Per Genesis) Putting Spirit first (the written teachings), we are able to better discern between the two. As it is, we often confuse the two and put knowledge (good or bad, we don’t really know) before learning how to  use it. 
 

[Philologos]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

I appreciate your request, but since God didn't give any details and only the results, no one knows and every "thought" is an opinion only.  Or a "theory".  I'm sure we'll know all the details in eternity!

Oh, no worries.  You mentioned it, I thought you had insight based on the verb tense you used.
I mistakenly thought you used that phrase to bring it to someone’s attention. It kinda made it sound like you were aware something had happened previously, rather than merely stating, “it was…”

Just curious, that’s all.

[FreeGrace]

9 minutes ago, Philologos said:

Oh, no worries.  You mentioned it, I thought you had insight based on the verb tense you used.
I mistakenly thought you used that phrase to bring it to someone’s attention. It kinda made it sound like you were aware something had happened previously, rather than merely stating, “it was…”

Just curious, that’s all.

My point is that the EXACT SAME FORM of the verb 'hayah' (was) in v.2 is translated as "became/become" in 59% of all the uses of that verb form in the OT.  So it is the most common translation of that form of the verb.  

My lexicon defines 'hayah' as "the verb of existence; to be or become".  It is found in many different forms in the OT, but looking at ONLY the exact same form as in v.2 shows that the most common translation in the OT is "became/become".  Even counting v.2, there are ONLY 4 verses that translate hayah as "was", which is a far cry from the 59% of verses translated as "became/become".

And the LXX translates the first word as "but" in the Greek, the conjunction of contrast.  So, what's the contrast?  That God created the earth (v.1) BUT the earth became a wasteland.

Seems no one is bothered by the fact that NO object is "formless" or "without form", which is how v.2 is translated.  Every object HAS a form.  Only invisible objects are formless, and only because we can't see them.  When we see something, obviously it has some kind of form.  So "formless" is a bogus translation for 'tohu'.  In the vast majority of translations of that word in the rest of the OT, we se "waste", "wasteland", "waste place" and "chaos", which is FAR different than simply "without form" which isn't even a real thing.

Apparently the KJV translators were puzzled by the meaning of these 2 words and just because there was no detail given as to how the earth became a wasteland, they punted and ignored the actual meaning of the words.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

Well, He’s given us the ability to choose. And He’s given us two pursuits to choose: His Spirit or the Spirit of the World.

His Spirit commends us to learn about His creation.   The Spirit of the World would have us ignorant.   That's why God gave us the ability to learn about His creation and to be good stewards of it. 

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

Adam/Eve put the cart before the horse and filled up on knowledge w/o first learning the ways of God and living by them. Had they not chosen that tree, they (and we) would have then had access to both trees and lived eternally without having any curiosity, shame, misuse of knowledge, etc.

As God says, by eating from the tree, they became like Him.    And thus potentially capable of fellowship with Him.    Ironically, it was misuse of knowledge that led to the fall.   By not understanding what God meant about death, and being unable understand good or evil, our ancestors fell from grace.

Hence the need for a Savior.    Do you really think God didn't know this would happen?

God is truth.   If you trust God, you should not be afraid of the truth.