Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[FreeGrace]

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

FreeGrace said: 

That's odd.  YEC claim that Genesis 1:1,2 prove a young earth.

That's why they are a minority among Christians.  Most accept it as it is, without adding YE doctrines.

From all I've heard and seen, the vast majority of Christians believe in a young earth, and view any idea of an earth any older than Adam as evolution.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's a Christian Book.  We had it first.   Not that we mind if others read it, but please keep in mind it was ours first.

Of course it is Christian.  But calling the Bible that seems odd.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Try to keep in mind the difference between evolution and adaptation.

That's what I've been trying to convey to you.  From what you've posted, it seems you view adaptation as evolution, which it isn't.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.   That can be adaptation, but sometimes it's not adaptation.

First sentence has no meaning to me.  God created the universe BEFORE there was any "population".  And the second sentence seems confused.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Adaptation is a change in organisms to make them more fit to the environment.

Of course.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

   Sometimes that's due to a change in alleles in a population and sometimes it's not.   The former is both adaptation and evolution and the latter is only evolution.

Clear now?

Nope.

19 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Right.   We didn't have populations until later when the Earth brought forth living things as God created it to do.   Gen. 1:25.   You know, that Christian book.

Still not clear.  So, let's do this.  I'll ask some basic questions and hopefully your answers will clear things up.

1.  Did God create the universe/earth in an instant or over a period of time?

2.  If over a period of time, any idea about how much time?

[Retrobyter]

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That's why they are a minority among Christians.  Most accept it as it is, without adding YE doctrines.

It's a Christian Book.  We had it first.   Not that we mind if others read it, but please keep in mind it was ours first.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Not so, my friend, the Book was first delivered to the People of the Book, the Children of Israel, particularly the TaNaKh, that portion called "the Old Testament" by Christians. "TaNaKh," btw, is an acronym that stands for "Torah" ("Instruction" consisting of the first five books called the "Pentateuch" by Christians) and "Navi'iym" ("Prophets") and "Ketuviym" ("Writings").

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Try to keep in mind the difference between evolution and adaptation. 

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.   That can be adaptation, but sometimes it's not adaptation.

Most of the time, it is, unless there's been a mutation that leads to infertility. For all the "microevolution" that is simply adaptive variations in the genetic structure of a kind, there's never been observable "macroevolution." It's a MYTH that has no basis in fact.

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Adaptation is a change in organisms to make them more fit to the environment.   Sometimes that's due to a change in alleles in a population and sometimes it's not.   The former is both adaptation and evolution and the latter is only evolution.

DEvolution, you mean. When such a change in alleles in a population occurs, it is always to the detriment of the kind; that is, it is a LOSS of information in the genetic system that limits the ability of the original genetic structure to adapt further, even though for that particular member of the kind, it was a positive adaptation to its environment.

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Clear now?

Right.   We didn't have populations until later when the Earth brought forth living things as God created it to do.   Gen. 1:25.   You know, that Christian book.

You mean that Israeliy Book. Remember: Paul, too, was a Jew. Even more, he was a Pharisee! He KNEW the Torah!

Romans 3:1-3 (KJV)

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

[Philologos]

44 minutes ago, FreeGrace said:

And who has any evidence of that?

I do; but, of course, I did the research, so I’m naturally bias.

I translate scripture; in doing so, I realized something very unique about how Genesis (traditionally what is known as chapter 1:1-2:3) was written. I compared it to the three subsequent chapters and found that it differs in every comparative trait.

Also, in goofing around with ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequencing) of the Hebrew text of chapter 1, I found four letters that kept repeating themselves throughout. It didn’t appear in the reading of the words, but only encoded. That word was unknown prior to the birth of Seth, (Adam was 235 yrs old), and it did not appear in that unique first chapter- except in the ELS. I figure it’s the signature of the one who wrote it.

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

I do; but, of course, I did the research, so I’m naturally bias.

I translate scripture; in doing so, I realized something very unique about how Genesis (traditionally what is known as chapter 1:1-2:3) was written. I compared it to the three subsequent chapters and found that it differs in every comparative trait.

Also, in goofing around with ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequencing) of the Hebrew text of chapter 1, I found four letters that kept repeating themselves throughout. It didn’t appear in the reading of the words, but only encoded. That word was unknown prior to the birth of Seth, (Adam was 235 yrs old), and it did not appear in that unique first chapter- except in the ELS. I figure it’s the signature of the one who wrote it.

My question is how anyone could know about "unknown words" prior to Seth.  What archeaological evidence is there for that?  

Does the Bible indicate when written language began?

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Not so, my friend, the Book was first delivered to the People of the Book, the Children of Israel, particularly the TaNaKh, that portion called "the Old Testament" by Christians. "TaNaKh," btw, is an acronym that stands for "Torah" ("Instruction" consisting of the first five books called the "Pentateuch" by Christians) and "Navi'iym" ("Prophets") and "Ketuviym" ("Writings")

Only the OT.   The NT is entirely Christian.

Try to keep in mind the difference between evolution and adaptation. 

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.   That can be adaptation, but sometimes it's not adaptation.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Most of the time, it is

It is always that way.  Never changes.   Words mean things, and this is what those words mean.

2 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

For all the "microevolution" that is simply adaptive variations in the genetic structure of a kind, there's never been observable "macroevolution."

Well, let's ask a YE creationist group...

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time... 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.

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

They just don't want to call it evolution.  

macroevolution

 

măk″rō-ĕv″ə-loo͞′shən, -ē″və-

noun

1. Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.

Adaptation is a change in organisms to make them more fit to the environment.   Sometimes that's due to a change in alleles in a population and sometimes it's not.   The former is both adaptation and evolution and the latter is only evolution.

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

DEvolution, you mean.

 No, there is no such thing.   Evolution merely means "change in alleles in a population."   The reverse, I suppose would be what biologists call "stasis" (no change).  Darwin explained how that happens. Would you like to learn about that?

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

When such a change in alleles in a population occurs, it is always to the detriment of the kind; that is, it is a LOSS of information in the genetic system

No, that's wrong, too.   A new mutation in a population always increases information in that population.   Would you like to see the number for a simple case?   Perhaps you don't know how information is calculated.   How did you calculate it?

 

[Philologos]

1 hour ago, FreeGrace said:

My question is how anyone could know about "unknown words" prior to Seth.  What archeaological evidence is there for that?  

Does the Bible indicate when written language began?

It’s documented in Scripture that a particular word was not used until after Seth’s birth. It’s used everywhere through the OT, except Genesis & one other OT book… and yet same word appears in the ELS subtext- not in the readable text, same as Genesis. 

I’m not presenting any teaching here, only stating that what we think of as being genesis chapter one uses different grammar, has characteristics that separate it from the rest of scripture. It is very unique, and equally mysterious. 
 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

From all I've heard and seen, the vast majority of Christians believe in a young earth, and view any idea of an earth any older than Adam as evolution.

Somewhat more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, and the Church recognizes that evolution is consistent with Christian faith.   The second largest group of Christians are Eastern Orthodox, and they also accept this fact.    Among Protestants, Anglicans and Lutherans (with the exception of one American synod) also accept this fact.  So you're pretty much out on that limb by yourself.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Of course it is Christian.  But calling the Bible that seems odd.

Not as odd as the modern movement, trying to revise Genesis to fit a young Earth doctrine.

Let's see if I can make evolution and adaptation simpler for you...

1. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

2. Adaptation is a change that makes organisms more fit for their environment.

3. Tanning does increase fitness, but doesn't involve a change in alleles., so it's adaptation but not evolution.

4. A mutation that makes humans resistant to hardening of the arteries is an adaptation and a change in alleles, so it's both adaptation and evolution.

5. A mutation that doesn't change the function of a protein in a population is a change in alleles. so it is evolution but is not adaptation.

Understand now?   I was invited to discuss this with an 8th grade class, and they got it.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

First sentence has no meaning to me.

Ah, sorry.   An allele is a different version of the same gene.  Or occasionally, an entirely new gene.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

God created the universe BEFORE there was any "population".

Yeah.   There was no evolution until there were organisms, or at least self-replicating systems.   Evolution assumes life began, and describes how it changes.   If God had just poofed living things into existence instead of making the  Earth to produce them, evolution would still work exactly as it does.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Still not clear.

You're the first person I've explained this to, who couldn't get it.   Not sure why.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

So, let's do this.  I'll ask some basic questions and hopefully your answers will clear things up.

1.  Did God create the universe/earth in an instant or over a period of time?

He created the universe in an instant.   As He says in Genesis, a lot of things developed from that initial creation over time.

3 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

2.  If over a period of time, any idea about how much time?

Maybe five billion years of the universe.   I'm not an astronomer or a cosmologist.   Do you think God created you?   How about people born this morning?   

He created apple maggot flies in the 1800s, and D. miranda in the early 1900s.   

It's an ongoing process.    I'm thinking that your inability to see what evolution is, and what adaptation is, is mostly what's holding you back.

 

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

  FreeGrace said: 

My question is how anyone could know about "unknown words" prior to Seth.  What archeaological evidence is there for that?  

Does the Bible indicate when written language began?

It’s documented in Scripture that a particular word was not used until after Seth’s birth. It’s used everywhere through the OT, except Genesis & one other OT book… and yet same word appears in the ELS subtext- not in the readable text, same as Genesis.

Could you explain what the ELS subtext is and what you mean by "the readable text".  

And just because a particular word wasn't used until after Seth's birth, doesn't mean anything.  

Fact is, until the Scriptural text was written, NO Hebrew word was used.  So each word that was written was the FIRST Hebrew word, until it occurred again.  So I don't get your point.

1 hour ago, Philologos said:

I’m not presenting any teaching here, only stating that what we think of as being genesis chapter one uses different grammar, has characteristics that separate it from the rest of scripture. It is very unique, and equally mysterious. 

Do you agree or disagree about my research method; of seeing how 2 key words in Gen 1:2 are translated elsewhere?

[FreeGrace]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Somewhat more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, and the Church recognizes that evolution is consistent with Christian faith.   The second largest group of Christians are Eastern Orthodox, and they also accept this fact.    Among Protestants, Anglicans and Lutherans (with the exception of one American synod) also accept this fact.  So you're pretty much out on that limb by yourself.

Ha.  Evolution (either your version or Darwin's) cannot explain Genesis 1.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Not as odd as the modern movement, trying to revise Genesis to fit a young Earth doctrine.

Let's see if I can make evolution and adaptation simpler for you...

1. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

2. Adaptation is a change that makes organisms more fit for their environment.

3. Tanning does increase fitness, but doesn't involve a change in alleles., so it's adaptation but not evolution.

4. A mutation that makes humans resistant to hardening of the arteries is an adaptation and a change in alleles, so it's both adaptation and evolution.

5. A mutation that doesn't change the function of a protein in a population is a change in alleles. so it is evolution but is not adaptation.

Understand now?   I was invited to discuss this with an 8th grade class, and they got it.

Good for them.  However, none of your 5 points explain Genesis 1.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Ah, sorry.   An allele is a different version of the same gene.  Or occasionally, an entirely new gene.

Yeah.   There was no evolution until there were organisms, or at least self-replicating systems.   Evolution assumes life began, and describes how it changes.   If God had just poofed living things into existence instead of making the  Earth to produce them, evolution would still work exactly as it does.

According to psa 33:9, God did exactly that:  "poofed living things into existence".

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You're the first person I've explained this to, who couldn't get it.   Not sure why.

Let's not get condescending.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

He created the universe in an instant.   As He says in Genesis, a lot of things developed from that initial creation over time.

Right.  "in an instant".  He spoke the universe into existence, out of nothing.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Maybe five billion years of the universe.   I'm not an astronomer or a cosmologist.   Do you think God created you?   How about people born this morning?

No, God didn't create me nor those born this morning.  In fact, He created only 2 people who we call Adam and Eve.  And God created them with the abililty to procreate.  However, if you are only referring to the immaterial part of me, my soul, then YES, He did.  Just as He did with Adam.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

   He created apple maggot flies in the 1800s, and D. miranda in the early 1900s.

So what?  Darwin wasn't interested in these.  

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's an ongoing process.    I'm thinking that your inability to see what evolution is, and what adaptation is, is mostly what's holding you back.

Ha.  I'm not being held back by anything.  I simply disagree with your ideas.  Evolution, as taught in schools, from elementary through graduate school, teaches that the universe developed over a long period of time, beginning with a slimy amoeba  which crawled out of some primordial soup.  That is the evolution that most people think of.  Certainly not the apple maggots, or D. miranda or those pesky frquencies you keep mentioning.

God created the entire universe in an instant, by speaking all of it into existence, from nothing.  And then something happened to earth, so God restored it for man's residence.  The original universe/earth is as old as scientists can measure it.  I don't care how old, and it doesn't matter.  

Also, I agree with scholars who have calculated that Adam was on earth about 6,000 years ago.  What happened between original creation and Adam's creation is unknown.  All we know is the result, which God fixed (katartizo - Greek).

That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.  And it fully explains ALL of Genesis 1 logically and reasonably.

[Philologos]

11 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Do you agree or disagree about my research method

Oh, I wasn’t concerned about your research method. I just think that by using a verb tense that has no purpose, in this particular case, but has the potential to create a focus on “what happened that God had to ‘restore’ the earth?” The only example I have is this conversation. I immediately noticed the grammar, I inquired about it, you dismissed my initial inquiry, I mentioned it a second time and you then agreed to say what was on your mind…

And then I was disappointed, to be honest. When you’d used that verb tense, it caught my attention, I actually hoped you had legitimate insight to why it was written that way… as I have waited 20 years to hear what someone else has to say about it… no problem, though. 
Your methods of research are fine, btw. 👍🏼