Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[The Barbarian]

10 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

What examples of macroevolution?

First one I know of...

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Califmlzia Institute of Techmlogy, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Even many creationist groups now admit that fact:

Answers in Genesis:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging...Nine out of ten species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

13 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

I stick with the Bible and not theories.

As you have seen, evolution of new species is a fact, not a theory.    Even many creationist organizations now admit new species evolve.

Of course, we know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

15 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

Sure we do.  The force of gravity pulls our feet to the ground so we don't float.  There would be no population ON the earth if there was no gravity.

You're just describing what gravitation does.   But you don't know why it does that.  You've confused efficient causes with final causes.   But we do know why evolution happens.

 

[FreeGrace]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

First one I know of...

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES
TH. DOBZHANSKY
Califmlzia Institute of Techmlogy, Pasadena, California
Received January 30, 1935

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

How did it come about?  From what other species?

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Even many creationist groups now admit that fact:

Answers in Genesis:
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging...Nine out of ten species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

As you have seen, evolution of new species is a fact, not a theory.    Even many creationist organizations now admit new species evolve.

Of course, we know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

You're just describing what gravitation does.   But you don't know why it does that.  You've confused efficient causes with final causes.   But we do know why evolution happens.

What I know is WHO makes it work.  I don't need the details.  And I know that God spoke the universe/earth into existence, which probably created a HUGE bang!

And I know that God restored the earth for man's existence on it.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

How did it come about?  From what other species?

Mutations.   D. pseudobscura.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

What I know is WHO makes it work.  I don't need the details.

But science is about the how.   And it matters.   Things like antibiotic protocols, cancer therapies and many other things.

2 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And I know that God restored the earth for man's existence on it.

That interpretation is one of many of man's additions to scripture.

 

[FreeGrace]

On 6/23/2023 at 3:57 PM, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

How did it come about?  From what other species?

Mutations.   D. pseudobscura.

This doesn't prove that the earth came about via evolution.  You know, a single amoeba crawling out of primordial slime, drying out and becoming a frog or something.    

btw, Darwin himself said that if his theories could be refuted, he would be wrong.  And his theories have been refuted, by irreducible complexity.  I'm sure you know all about that, but for our reading only audience, Irreducible complexity is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional.

One example of irreducible complexity is the simple mouse trap.  If just 1 of its parts is missing it cannot function.  In the real world of life, the flagellum motor is another example if IC.  It contains over 140 separate parts, and if even 1 of them is missing, damaged, etc, the cell will die.

 

On 6/23/2023 at 3:57 PM, The Barbarian said:

But science is about the how.   And it matters.   Things like antibiotic protocols, cancer therapies and many other things.

Of course science is about how and is very important for the things you note, but none of that is about evolution.

On 6/23/2023 at 3:57 PM, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

And I know that God restored the earth for man's existence on it.

That interpretation is one of many of man's additions to scripture.

Well, you're a biologist.  I'm a bibliologist.  I found that key words in Gen 1:2 are translated rather differently where they occur elsewhere in the OT.  And we know what words mean by how they are used.  

So what Moses wrote in Hebrew isn't what all the "traditional translations" say.

And it completely explains WHY the earth/universe is so very very old, and ALL without any "theories" or evolution.

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

This doesn't prove that the earth came about via evolution.

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

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You know, a single amoeba crawling out of primordial slime, drying out and becoming a frog or something.

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

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

btw, Darwin himself said that if his theories could be refuted, he would be wrong.  

More specifically, he said that if anyone could show an feature of a living thing that was evolved for the exclusive benefit of a different living thing, his theory would be falsified.    So far, so good.  

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And his theories have been refuted, by irreducible complexity.  

You've been misled there.   First, we've documented cases of irreducible complexity evolving.   Would you like to learn about those?   Second, Michael Behe, the person who proposed irreducible complexity, thinks all life evolved from a common ancestor.  You sure you want to cite him?

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

One example of irreducible complexity is the simple mouse trap.  If just 1 of its parts is missing it cannot function.

That's wrong too.   You can remove wooden bait platform and attach the bait to the wire, and it still works.   But feel free to show us some feature of an organism that you think could not have evolved.  

As you just learned, irreducible complexity has been observed to evolve.   Hall's bacteria, for example.   Want to learn about that?

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

In the real world of life, the flagellum motor is another example if IC.  It contains over 140 separate parts, and if even 1 of them is missing, damaged, etc, the cell will die.

That's wrong, too.   The flagellum turns out to be an elaboration of the Type III secretory apparatus.   Would you like to learn about that?

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Of course science is about how and is very important for the things you note, but none of that is about evolution.

The antibiotic protocols I mentioned are based on evolutionary theory.   And they work.    BTW, Alexander Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, warned that overuse of the drug would lead to the evolution of resistance.   He was correct.

Quote

And I know that God restored the earth for man's existence on it.

That interpretation is one of many of man's additions to scripture.

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Well, you're a biologist.  I'm a bibliologist.  I found that key words in Gen 1:2 are translated rather differently where they occur elsewhere in the OT.  And we know what words mean by how they are used.  

Since most Biblical scholars disagree with you...

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So what Moses wrote in Hebrew isn't what all the "traditional translations" say.

I'd be open to your arguments as to why you think the Bible is wrong.   What do you have?

9 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

And it completely explains WHY the earth/universe is so very very old, and ALL without any "theories" or evolution.

Evolution is just the observed phenomenon of allele frequencies changing over time.   So it's absurd to demand that the theory that explains that phenomenon, account for the age of the Earth.

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by The Barbarian

[Philologos]

Yes, God created the universe, but the Genesis account is not about the creation of the universe, it’s about the beginning of life on earth… just earth, and specifically, the focus was on a limited region. 

We don’t have to reconcile the age difference, because scripture isn’t telling that story. We don’t know, per scripture, what happened- if anything, before the 6 days.

So what if God waited billions of years before creating life… or, so what if God did it all at once 6000 years ago and people want to argue about it?! 
 

The point is, it really doesn’t matter when, or how everything was done. God doesn’t owe us that explanation. He wrote down what He wanted us to know, the starting point of life on earth.
 

 

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Philologos said:

So what if God waited billions of years before creating life… or, so what if God did it all at once 6000 years ago and people want to argue about it?! 

 Some creationists think so, but it imputes dishonest to God, so that's not an option for a Christian.

8 hours ago, Philologos said:

The point is, it really doesn’t matter when, or how everything was done.

Right.

8 hours ago, Philologos said:

God doesn’t owe us that explanation.

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

He tells us that the Earth brought forth life as He created it to do.   How that happened, He didn't tell us.

 

[FreeGrace]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

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.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

What I know of it is all from Darwin's theories.  And thank you for noticing.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

More specifically, he said that if anyone could show an feature of a living thing that was evolved for the exclusive benefit of a different living thing, his theory would be falsified.    So far, so good.  

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

How about my fav, the flagellum motor.  And what do you mean by irreducible comdplexity evolving?

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

   Second, Michael Behe, the person who proposed irreducible complexity, thinks all life evolved from a common ancestor.  You sure you want to cite him?

I've never cited him.  I used the simple mouse trap as an example.  If he used that example, I wouldn't have known.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's wrong too.   You can remove wooden bait platform and attach the bait to the wire, and it still works.

And you are missing the boat.  I never said anything about CHANGING the structure.  I said removing any part makes it unworkable.  Catches no mice. 

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But feel free to show us some feature of an organism that you think could not have evolved.

I think we're maybe just talking over each other.  Of course there are many changes in both man and animals over time.  But why is that evolution, when that wasn't Darwin's proposal anyway. 

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As you just learned, irreducible complexity has been observed to evolve.

Excuse me, but I haven't learned any such thing.  You did mention that IC evolves, but you haven't shown any examples, and I still don't know what you think "evolve" means.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

   Hall's bacteria, for example.   Want to learn about that?

Sure.  I'm up for it.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's wrong, too.   The flagellum turns out to be an elaboration of the Type III secretory apparatus.   Would you like to learn about that?

So which type it is has no bearing on the FACT that it needs all 140+ parts to function.  Or can you prove that it can lose some of its parts and keep the mitochondria functioning?

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The antibiotic protocols I mentioned are based on evolutionary theory.   And they work.

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

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

    BTW, Alexander Flemming, the discoverer of penicillin, warned that overuse of the drug would lead to the evolution of resistance.   He was correct.

Maybe rather than using the word "evolution" just say that organisms build up an immunity to the drug.  One can call that whatever they want.  It is an adaptation, not an evolution.

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Since most Biblical scholars disagree with you...

Where do you think I LEANED about a time gap between v.1 and 2?  Do you think I just made that up?  And then scrambled around trying to support the idea?

 

I'd be open to your arguments as to why you think the Bible is wrong.   What do you have?

Where can you point to that shows that I "think the bible is wrong".  That's kind of a cheap shot, if anyone's asking.  I think the Bible is INFALLIBLE, that's what I think.

And I think the "traditional translation" of v.2 is patently wrong.  And I've shown why it is wrong.  I compared 2 words in v.2 with how they are translated elsewhere in the OT and the vast majority of translations found elsewhere are quite different than in v.2.

Evolution is just the observed phenomenon of allele frequencies changing over time.   So it's absurd to demand that the theory that explains that phenomenon, account for the age of the Earth.

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

I suppose you might describe the effect of regular overload of muscles as evolution, when it is simply adaptation to overload.  Something God created in all living things.

But that doesn't explain a very old earth.  If you don't agree with the YEC, all you've got is "evolution", which seems to be only adaptation, which doesn't come even close to a very old earth.

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

[FreeGrace]

8 hours ago, Philologos said:

Yes, God created the universe, but the Genesis account is not about the creation of the universe, it’s about the beginning of life on earth… just earth, and specifically, the focus was on a limited region.

Bingo!  Exactly.  

8 hours ago, Philologos said:

We don’t have to reconcile the age difference, because scripture isn’t telling that story. We don’t know, per scripture, what happened- if anything, before the 6 days.

By comparing how 2 words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT, we see a rather dramatically different understanding of what happened to earth which led God to spend 6 days restoring the earth.  Yes, God didn't give any details of what happened, by whom, or anything else.  

All He gave us was that He created the heavens and earth (v.1) but the earth became a wasteland (v.2).  And God restores the earth in 6 days and then places man on the planet.

8 hours ago, Philologos said:

So what if God waited billions of years before creating life… or, so what if God did it all at once 6000 years ago and people want to argue about it?!

Fortunately, an old earth changes nothing and doesn't support the evolutionary theory in any way.  But a very young earth is impossible to defend, since the earth certainly appears to be very old.  And God doesn't create illusions or deceptions, which is what YEC have to defend.  One YEC told me that since God created Adam with "apparent age" (mature male), He did the same thing with the universe/earth.

But, wait; that doesn't make sense on its face.  Adam had a job to do and needed to be fully functional.  So the YEC have to explain logically and reasonably how the universe and earth have a "job to do" and thus necessitated being created functionally able to do that job.  Comparing Adam's maturity with the universe/earth is like comparing apples to brussel sprouts.  Not even close.

8 hours ago, Philologos said:

 The point is, it really doesn’t matter when, or how everything was done. God doesn’t owe us that explanation. He wrote down what He wanted us to know, the starting point of life on earth.

Excellent point!  

[Philologos]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

By comparing how 2 words in v.2 are translated elsewhere in the OT, we see a rather dramatically different understanding of what happened to earth which led God to spend 6 days restoring the earth.  Yes, God didn't give any details of what happened, by whom, or anything else.  

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