Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[The Barbarian]

17 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

ON THE OTHER HAND, it is most definitely NOT right to FORCE people to contribute to the poor with their own money! That's an EVIL that is propagated in our society and in our government! It's WRONG to "tax those who can afford it" to pay for social welfare!

Let's ask God...

Leviticus 19:9 When thou reapest the corn of thy land, thou shalt not cut down all that is on the face of the earth to the very ground: nor shalt thou gather the ears that remain.  10  Neither shalt thou gather the bunches and grapes that fall down in thy vineyard, but shalt leave them to the poor and the strangers to take. I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 23:22 And when you reap the corn of your land, you shall not cut it to the very ground: neither shall you gather the ears that remain; but you shall leave them for the poor and for the strangers. I am the Lord your God.

 

22 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

One should understand that there ARE variations within the genetic code that should NOT be called "evolution" at all! These variations are NATURAL methods of survival WITHIN a genetic type! For instance, the color of a moth's wings, the size of a dog, the stripes of a cat, the speed of a cat; these all do NOT change the genetic make-up of the species and in some cases the genus of the creature! NOT EVERY CHANGE SHOULD BE LABELED "EVOLUTION!!!"

In fact, evolution is change.  that's what the word means.   So a change in the alleles in a population is by definition, evolution.   And yes, every individual born, changes the population allele frequencies, unless they are genetically identical.  

24 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Actually, the better understanding is not "common descent," but "common design!"

Fortunately, genetics gives us a way to test that belief.   Turns out, DNA analyses confirm common descent.   The phylogenies based on DNA turn out to be almost identical to those base on phenotypes.   And where it doesn't we find analogy rather than homology, which indicates convergence.   Would you like to see how we know?

26 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

The SAME GOD who made all the "tetrapods," or "four-footed" animals, would use the same general pattern for those animals!

That's a testable belief.   And it turns out, you're right.  DNA and anatomy shows that all tetrapods have a common ancestor.   On the other hand, wings are analogous in tetrapods, having evolved at least three times.   So the wings of birds, bats, and pterosaurs "look alike", but are different in structure, showing that they evolved from different structures.  Analogy, not homology.  And genetics shows this with birds and bats.

29 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Oh, they were there. Dinosaurs are just overgrown lizards

No.  They are archosaurs, very, very different than lizards which are squamates.   

As the YE creationist Kurt Wise points out, the fossil record contains a huge number of fossils confirming Darwin's predictions, all found after his book was published.   The number of predicted transitional forms found in my lifetime is huge.

Reptile to mammal

Fish to tetrapod

Land ungulate to whale

Base anapsid to turtles 

Wasps to ants

Salamanders to frogs

Hominoids to humans

(long list)

35 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

A long list of ASSUMPTIONS

No, that's wrong.  It's well-documented evidence.  Even your fellow YE creationist admits that it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

36 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

So, is it that God cannot possibly just create a whale or a turtle?

He could just create you, too.  But like most everything else in this world, He used nature that He created to do it.   Why is that so hard to accept?

37 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

And, what hominoids could possibly be transitional to humans?!

Australopithicenes to H. erectus to H. sapiens for example.    As Dr. Wise admits, the hominoid series is evidence for evolution.   Would you like to learn how we know this?

 

[Retrobyter]

On 3/16/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

Let's ask God...

Leviticus 19:9 When thou reapest the corn of thy land, thou shalt not cut down all that is on the face of the earth to the very ground: nor shalt thou gather the ears that remain.  10  Neither shalt thou gather the bunches and grapes that fall down in thy vineyard, but shalt leave them to the poor and the strangers to take. I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 23:22 And when you reap the corn of your land, you shall not cut it to the very ground: neither shall you gather the ears that remain; but you shall leave them for the poor and for the strangers. I am the Lord your God.

Shalom, The Barbarian.

LOL! The answer to this little riddle is simple! The U.S. government is NOT "the LORD your God!"

On 3/16/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

In fact, evolution is change.  that's what the word means.   So a change in the alleles in a population is by definition, evolution.   And yes, every individual born, changes the population allele frequencies, unless they are genetically identical.  

No, sir. "Evolution" means an "outward turning," like the chambers of a nautilus. It's the belief that with every change, things are getting better. The truth, however, is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says just the REVERSE! Things don't get better as they change; they get WORSE! They tend to disorder and randomness! Energy that changes too many times, dies a "heat death," decaying to infrared with longer and longer wavelengths.

It reminds me of those merge-three games. The more you merge, the higher the level; HOWEVER, the more sets of three are merged into the next level, the number of lower-level sets that must be fulfilled grows exponentially larger! Eventually, the number of low-level sets that must be merged becomes unmanageable! Each higher level requires the Sum (Σ) of 3 ^ (n-k+1) as k goes from 1 to n, where n = the number of levels below the new level, and k = the iteration of the sublevels.

It's like the story of the person who invented the game of chess: The Mobile Premier League recounts the legend:

"The history of the popular game of kings is highly debatable. There are numerous stories, legends, and guesses related to how chess originated. According to one of those interesting ancient legends, chess was invented by Grand Vizier Sissa Ben Dahir and gifted to the Indian King Shirham, also known as Shahram. Delighted by the gift, the king offered to reward him with anything he wanted, provided that it was reasonable.

"The Grand Vizier requested just one wheat grain on the first square of the chessboard, followed by two on the second square, four on the third, and continue to double the number on the successive squares until all the squares on the chessboard are filled with grains.

"Underestimating the request of the Grand Vizier, King Shahram laughed at the request of a small gift and instantly asked someone to calculate how many wheat grains would be required. It took a week to arrive at the number, which shocked the King. The average number of grains that would fill up all the squares as per the Vizier’s request came to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains which were equal to the harvest of several decades for the whole world.

"The king ordered his men to fulfill the Vizier’s request and learned a lesson of never underestimating small things in life and hence, the pawns in chess."

See Who invented chess.

I heard the end of the story a little differently: As the piles of grain began to grow larger and larger, the king ordered the DEATH of the Vizier for his impertinence in thinking he could out-smart the king!

After all, that's 18 quintillion 446 quadrillion 744 trillion 73 billion 709 million 551 thousand 615 grains of wheat! That would not only equal "the harvest of several decades for the whole world," but it would take the lifetimes of many men to COUNT!

The bottomline is this: The pricetag on Evolution over several million years would be too great a burden to place on chance and time alone! The complexity of DNA itself is more than something that one can hope to find, even if the dice were loaded!

On 3/16/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

Fortunately, genetics gives us a way to test that belief.   Turns out, DNA analyses confirm common descent.   The phylogenies based on DNA turn out to be almost identical to those base on phenotypes.   And where it doesn't we find analogy rather than homology, which indicates convergence.   Would you like to see how we know?

Not really. See, I think you've forgotten that I'm primarily a mathematician who also served as a computer programmer. I understand functions in mathematics quite well, and as a programmer, I am well aware of the proverb, "Garbage in, garbage out." The function may be quite accurate, but if one feeds the function erroneous input data, one is going to get erroneous data for its output.

One must understand that each one of the DNA molecules themselves are fascinating artworks of complexity. They house so much knowledge, that it's a fool's quest to think that an analysis of the DNA is going to reveal anything about its origin! It cannot "confirm common descent," because NO ONE WAS THERE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS GENERATED BY DESCENT! DNA is so complex, that one SHOULD come to the conclusion that, not only is God real, but He's the ONLY ONE who could have designed the DNA/mRNA/tRNA system! Furthermore, EVERY SINGLE CELL in the body of a creature contains this complex code! Who else but the God who knows every neutrino in His UNIVERSE, and is in total control of it all!

Rather than trying to figure out how all these various life forms evolved, we SHOULD be reveling in the MAGNITUDE of an AWESOME GOD, The ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR!

Our only question should be: "How big is YOUR God?!" However big you imagine Him to be, HE'S BIGGER!

On 3/16/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

That's a testable belief.   And it turns out, you're right.  DNA and anatomy shows that all tetrapods have a common ancestor.  

Nope. Sorry, but DNA and anatomy show that all tetrapods have a common CREATOR!

On 3/16/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

On the other hand, wings are analogous in tetrapods, having evolved at least three times.   So the wings of birds, bats, and pterosaurs "look alike", but are different in structure, showing that they evolved from different structures.  Analogy, not homology.  And genetics shows this with birds and bats.

One mustn't forget the winged insects, as well. Furthermore, there are multiple types of insect wings, as well! And, EACH set of insect wings is UNIQUELY designed for the functions that each kind of insect needed wings for!

Queen ants, for example, only need their wings for their mating flights, and they are discarded after the mating has been accomplished and the queen is ready to start a new colony! Why are the stingers of bees barbed and the stingers of wasps smooth and retractable?

On 3/16/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

No.  They are archosaurs, very, very different than lizards which are squamates. 

Well, we'll see. See, I believe that the "ancient" animals, the animals that are now extinct (or well hidden) will be back on the New Earth after the Fire, as seen in Revelation 21 and 22. In fact, all of the animals will be there. "Archosaurs and squamates" are just more types of classification. And, you don't know the full effects of a Global Flood. With a thinner atmosphere and less atmospheric moisture, some creatures couldn't survive while others thrived.

All animals, according to Genesis 1 and 2, were herbivores before the Flood. It wasn't until after the Flood of Genesis 6-8 that animals were allowed to eat meat, as were human beings.

The Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example, had six-inch teeth, but they were only in the jawbone one inch! If they had tried to tear meat, they would have ripped their teeth right out of their heads! No, their serrated teeth were more designed for shredding the leaves off of trees!

On 3/16/2023 at 10:59 PM, The Barbarian said:

As the YE creationist Kurt Wise points out, the fossil record contains a huge number of fossils confirming Darwin's predictions, all found after his book was published.   The number of predicted transitional forms found in my lifetime is huge.

Reptile to mammal

Fish to tetrapod

Land ungulate to whale

Base anapsid to turtles 

Wasps to ants

Salamanders to frogs

Hominoids to humans

(long list)

No, that's wrong.  It's well-documented evidence.  Even your fellow YE creationist admits that it's "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

He could just create you, too.  But like most everything else in this world, He used nature that He created to do it.   Why is that so hard to accept?

Australopithicenes to H. erectus to H. sapiens for example.    As Dr. Wise admits, the hominoid series is evidence for evolution.   Would you like to learn how we know this?

"Pithicus" means "ape." and "homo" means "man." So, even in the NAMING of your so-called transitionary forms, you have your assumptions embedded in the NAMES!

So, we go from "southern apes" to "upright man" to "wise man." However, did you know, for example, that most of this evidence is not compiled without a lot of photoshopping and  guesswork? There's no transition between these fossils!

Edited March 18, 2023 by Retrobyter
wrong word error

[BeyondET]

On 3/7/2023 at 9:40 AM, FJK said:

Was old age and death designed in to man, as he was perfect as God designed him in the Garden, or did the process of aging and death begin when he sinned and only occurred after the expulsion from the garden?    Could man have lived millions of years in eternal youth in the Garden, or would he still have grown old and died in a few short years there anyway?

Does the Scripture offer any insight into this?

Man wasn't designed in the garden but placed into it.

Edited March 18, 2023 by BeyondET

[FJK]

18 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Man wasn't designed in the garden but placed into it.

I should have stated that more clearly, I can see my error when I reread it.

What I was meaning to convey is that while he was in the garden he was perfect, the way God designed him to be.

BTW, I had never really considered where God designed him, are there some scriptures I could study to increase my understanding about where it took place?

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

No, sir. "Evolution" means an "outward turning," like the chambers of a nautilus.

No, that's a misunderstanding of the etymological roots of the word.  It first came into use around the 1640s:

 evolve (v.)

1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from Latin evolvere "to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll," from PIE root *wel- (3) "to turn, revolve."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolution

This is how it came to be used for "change."   Hence "evolution of auto design", "stellar evolution", "the evolution of the republican party voter" to list a few things found just now.  It has come to mean "change."

Which is why Darwin preferred the more descriptive term "descent with modification."   Biological evolution merely means "change in allele frequencies in a population."

Fortunately, genetics gives us a way to test that belief.   Turns out, DNA analyses confirm common descent.   The phylogenies based on DNA turn out to be almost identical to those base on phenotypes.   And where it doesn't we find analogy rather than homology, which indicates convergence.   Would you like to see how we know?

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Not really.

Unfortunate.  You see, it quickly became apparent that DNA was the material that comprised genes.   And as you might know, genes determine heredity and therefore, your genetic relationship to parents and ancestors is coded in your genes.    It's how we can verify fatherhood, or one's descent from a distant ancestor (as done recently with the black descendants of Thomas Jefferson).   So we know it works.    Remarkably, such analyses have confirmed the ancestries evidenced in anatomical and fossil data.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

See, I think you've forgotten that I'm primarily a mathematician who also served as a computer programmer.

I did most of the computer programming for my department back in the day when it was just getting underway.   My first stuff was in Fortran and the first survey tracking we did, was done on a Xerox 820 in C/PM.    Yes, l'm really old.   I got my masters in Systems with a focus on biological systems.   Did some work on the Lotka-Voleterra model back then, and some related stuff on how resource allocation problems apply to natural selection in predators and prey.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

One must understand that each one of the DNA molecules themselves are fascinating artworks of complexity. They house so much knowledge, that it's a fool's quest to think that an analysis of the DNA is going to reveal anything about its origin! It cannot "confirm common descent," because NO ONE WAS THERE TO PROVE THAT IT WAS GENERATED BY DESCENT!

See above.  We can test that assumption with organisms of known descent.  Turns out, it does.  

BTW, we have now found all the bases for DNA an RNA in meteorites where they formed abiotically.  

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/all-of-the-bases-in-dna-and-rna-have-now-been-found-in-meteorites

You see, it doesn't indicate design; it shows us something much more awe-inspiring.   God created the universe with just a few simple rules (or maybe just one) to bring forth life as He intended.    Which is what the Bible tells us.  Those who would demote God to a mere "designer" are selling Him short.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Rather than trying to figure out how all these various life forms evolved, we SHOULD be reveling in the MAGNITUDE of an AWESOME GOD, The ALL-POWERFUL CREATOR!

Finding these things out, is reveling in the magnitude of an awesome God, the all-powerful creator (not a mere designer).

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Our only question should be: "How big is YOUR God?!" However big you imagine Him to be, HE'S BIGGER!

You're trying to fit God into human concepts.   Let that go.  He is beyond measure. 

That's a testable belief.   And it turns out, you're right.  DNA and anatomy shows that all tetrapods have a common ancestor.  

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

 Nope. Sorry, but DNA and anatomy show that all tetrapods have a common CREATOR!

A common creator Who used evolution to produce them.   You see, common descent shows two important things. 

1. genetic descent

As you see, organisms that are descended from others will show this in their DNA.

2. homologies    That is, the similarities are not in appearance or function,but in the tissues and organs that make them up.  

On the other hand, wings are analogous in tetrapods, having evolved at least three times.   So the wings of birds, bats, and pterosaurs "look alike", but are different in structure, showing that they evolved from different structures.  Analogy, not homology.  And genetics shows this with birds and bats.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

One mustn't forget the winged insects, as well. Furthermore, there are multiple types of insect wings, as well! And, EACH set of insect wings is UNIQUELY designed for the functions that each kind of insect needed wings for!

And that again shows why homology, not analogy demonstrates common descent.    In tetrapods, wings evolved from forelimbs, but at different times and using different forelimb structures.    However, it appears that wings in insects evolved once, using the a specific struture (gills on the upper part of biramous appendages)   All insect wings examined so far, show the embryological anatomical, and genetic evidence for it.   It's a complex but interesting issue. Would you like to learn more about it?

And yes, there are transitional forms.  

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Why are the stingers of bees barbed and the stingers of wasps smooth and retractable?

What would be the advantage to an insect stinging a threat and then gutting itself as the stinger/poison sac remains in the threat?   The sac continues to pump toxin into the stung organism, harming it further, but the bee dies.   What good is that?   Well, if your hivemates are clones of yourself, it makes perfect evolutionary sense, because your death will make their survival (and the survival of your genes) more likely.  

The stinger is a highly-modified ovipositor and the poison glands are modified from glands used to deposit eggs.   Would you like to learn how we know that?

Dinosaurs are archosaurs, very, very different than lizards which are squamates. 

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

See, I believe that the "ancient" animals, the animals that are now extinct (or well hidden) will be back on the New Earth after the Fire, as seen in Revelation 21 and 22. In fact, all of the animals will be there. "Archosaurs and squamates" are just more types of classification.

Beliefs are one thing; evidence matters.   Birds and alligators (and their kin) are the only remaining archosaurs on Earth. Birds and alligators are more similar genetically and in homology than alligators and lizards.   And we have very limited biochemical data on non-avian dinosaurs, but what we have shows them to be more closely related to birds than to lizards.    Would you like to see that?

Scientists reconstruct genome of common ancestor of crocodiles, birds, dinosaurs

https://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

With a thinner atmosphere and less atmospheric moisture, some creatures couldn't survive while others thrived.

There is geochemical data on the way those things changed over the ages.   It's not what creationists imagined.   Would you  like to see that?

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

All animals, according to Genesis 1 and 2, were herbivores before the Flood.

No, that is not in scripture.   It's an assumption based on man's wishes.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

The Tyrannosaurus Rex, for example, had six-inch teeth, but they were only in the jawbone one inch! If they had tried to tear meat, they would have ripped their teeth right out of their heads!

In fact, we have found T-rex teeth embedded in its intended prey:

Previous evidence for predation included T. rex fossil discoveries with preserved stomach contents that included the bones of a young ceratopsian (e.g., Triceratops or one of its kin). However, there was no evidence to conclude whether the ceratopsian was alive or dead when the T. rex made a snack of it.

By contrast, Burnham said the tooth was definitive evidence of hunting, after carefully measuring its length and the size of its serrations to ensure that it came from the mouth of a T. rex.

"Lo and behold, the tooth plotted out just exactly with T. rex -- the only known large theropod from the Hell Creek formation," he said. "We knew we had a T. rex tooth in the tail of a hadrosaur. Better yet, we knew the hadrosaur got away because the bone had begun to heal. Quite possibly it was being pursued by the T. rex when it was bitten. It was going in the right direction -- away. The hadrosaur escaped by some stroke of luck. The better luck is finding this fossil with the preserved evidence."

Because T. rex regularly shed its teeth, the predator went away hungry, but otherwise no worse for the encounter. It would have grown a new tooth to replace the one left behind in the hadrosaur's tail.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130716135841.htm

As the YE creationist Kurt Wise points out, the fossil record contains a huge number of fossils confirming Darwin's predictions, all found after his book was published.   The number of predicted transitional forms found in my lifetime is huge.

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

"Pithicus" means "ape." and "homo" means "man." So, even in the NAMING of your so-called transitionary forms, you have your assumptions embedded in the NAMES!

The names came after the finds were examined.  They reflect the evidence.   So Australopithecus (southern ape man) is pretty descriptive.   Australopithecines are immediately transitional between species of forest apes and species of humans.   Would you like to learn about that?

8 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

So, we go from "southern apes" to "upright man" to "wise man." However, did you know, for example, that most of this evidence is not compiled without a lot of photoshopping and  guesswork? There's no transition between these fossils!

You've been misled about that.  

Here's a chimpanzee upper jaw, with an Australopithecine jaw and a human jaw.   As you see, the Australopithecine jaw is transitional to the human jaw.  

 

Here are the hand bones of a chimp a human and a late Australopithecine.  Notice that A. sebida is transitional between human and chimp.    It has a more robust thumb, useful for handing tools, but it lacks the muscle insertions for the adductor pollicis, which allows humans to do a precise three-point grasp for fine work.   Which is exactly what we'd expect in the transition between hominoids and humans.

Let me know if you'd like more detail on any of this.

[The Barbarian]

Based on anatomical (and DNA evidence where available).

[BeyondET]

16 hours ago, FJK said:

I should have stated that more clearly, I can see my error when I reread it.

What I was meaning to convey is that while he was in the garden he was perfect, the way God designed him to be.

BTW, I had never really considered where God designed him, are there some scriptures I could study to increase my understanding about where it took place?

The only mentioning of where is on earth. I think man was very good, perfect is a tall order even satan couldn't handle being perfect but only God. 

[BeyondET]

On 3/14/2023 at 9:33 PM, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

Adam and Eve were created perfect in every way, as was the entire planet and universe. This is why God said it was VERY good. The process of aging and decay began the moment they ate the forbidden fruit ( what that was we are never told ), If they had never eaten the forbidden fruit and committed sin, YES they would have lived for millions and billions of years in the garden or elsewhere on earth. They would not ever have died, just as every person born since then would have been perfect and lived forever. HOWEVER, I believe the case can be made that God would NOT have created them at all if they would pass the test. God knew they would fail the test before he even created creation. The CROSS was in his mind before he even said "let there be light".

How does very good equal perfection. No where is scripture says Adam and Eve would live forever. They were not to eat from both the knowledge and tree of life thus would have lived forever in the flesh.

[BeyondET]

On 3/13/2023 at 9:58 AM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, FreeGrace.

Yes, it was doubled for emphasis. You can even see that it's been doubled with a cursory look at the words "מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת," transliterated as "MOWT taaMOWT." However, one must be aware of the parts of speech, as well. The first word is considered the Qal infinitive absolute, and the second word is considered the Qal imperfect in the second-person, masculine gender, and singular number. They work together to form what is known as the Qal infinitive construct state. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar covers this from p. 347 to p. 352 in section 114.

This philosophy doesn't come from the Scriptures but comes from one's THEOLOGY. The Hebrew word "רוּחַ" or "ruwach," which is often translated as "spirit," actually means "a wind." That's the word's primary meaning! It is then used to express things LIKE the "wind," such as a person's "breath."

7307 ruwach רוּחַ (roo'-akh). From ruwach (the root verb); wind; BY RESEMBLANCE breath, i.e. A sensible (or even violent) exhalation; FIGURATIVELY, life, anger, unsubstantiality; BY EXTENSION, a region of the sky; BY RESEMBLANCE spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):
-- air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X quarter, X side, spirit((-ual)), tempest, X vain, ((whirl-))wind(-y).

Notice that in this entry from the "Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary" of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (which I use because it is readily available to most people whi are students of God's Word) that the writer adds the words "but only of a rational being." HOWEVER, the word is also used of animals as well as God and people!

It's really very simple: Animals that are nafshiym (the plural of nefesh, meaning an "air-breathing creature") have to "breathe," too! Therefore, they, too, have a "breath" a "ruwach! "

I'm sitting at my computer with my dogs asleep at my feet, and I'm watching the movement of their muscles to make movements in their diaphragms to move air in and out of their bodies while they sleep. If they stopped doing that, they would die, as any air-breather would. They HAVE a "breath" - a "ruwach," just as people do.

Consider...

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 (KJV)

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, THEY HAVE ALL ONE BREATH; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

The Hebrew of the latter part of verse 19 is ...

וְר֥וּחַ אֶחָ֖ד לַכֹּ֑ל וּמֹותַ֨ר הָאָדָ֤ם מִן־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ אָ֔יִן כִּ֥י הַכֹּ֖ל הָֽבֶל׃

This transliterates to ...

19b vruwach 'echaad lakol uwmowtar maa'aadaam min-habheemaah 'aayin kiy hakol haaVel:

This translates word-for-word to ...

19b and-breath one to-the-whole and-advantage from-red-[man] from-the-beast has-none for the-whole [is]-a-vapor.

Here's the Hebrew of verse 21:

מִ֣י יֹודֵ֗עַ ר֚וּחַ בְּנֵ֣י הָאָדָ֔ם הָעֹלָ֥ה הִ֖יא לְמָ֑עְלָה וְר֙וּחַ֙ הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה הַיֹּרֶ֥דֶת הִ֖יא לְמַ֥טָּה לָאָֽרֶץ׃

This is transliterated to ...

21 Miy yowdeea` ruwach bneey haa'aadaam haa`olaah hiy' lmaa`laah vruwach habheemaah hayyoredet hiy' lmaTTaah laa'aarets:

This is translated word-for-word to ...

21 Who knows a-breath of-the-sons of-the-red-[man] which-goes it-(feminine) to-above/upward and-a-breath of-the-beast which-goes it to-below/downward to-the-land/earth.

One should not take this to be some higher insight; it's simply that when a person dies, he or she is usually on his or her back, and when he or she expires for the last time, the breath goes upward. When an animal dies, it is usually either on its side or on its belly, and its breath goes downward to the ground. 

The "preacher" (King Solomon) was simply making the point that we all - human beings and animals alike - die the same way, we expire, we breathe our last, and we die.

By itself, this could be a depressing thought, but one must remember "the dropping of the other shoe!" THE RESURRECTION is promised!

Nope. Again, this comes from theological philosophy, not from the Scriptures. One should NOT expect to see the "spirit" as anything other than one's "breath," which resembles a "wind." It's what goes in and out of us all day and all night, for as long as we are given to live. When we die, we give up the "spirit" - we give up the "breath," and we die. This tripartite view of man (or animals) is not supported in the Bible. Instead, we are the body, we have a breath, and as long as we breathe, we are "breathing creatures," "souls." NONE of these "parts" or words goes to "Heaven" when we die! Instead, we are to look forward to the RESURRECTION! Look to the Creator God who will remake us as we were before with some improvements: We will be glorious bodies, that is, bodies that GLOW! We will be air-BLASTING bodies, rather than mere air-breathing bodies! We will become bodies that can no longer decay and therefore, we will become bodies that can no longer die! We become incorruptible and immortal!

We'll have jobs to do first; that's what the Millennium is all about, however, we are to anticipate what most call "Heaven," the New Jerusalem, coming HERE after the earth has been renovated!

"Spirit" in this context means "what a person SAYS that he or she believes" with his or her "breath." And, the "truth" is the concrete immutability of the Scriptures.

Sure. He died a physical death. Before he sinned and was cursed, he did NOT have any physical death anywhere in his body. He would have indeed lived forever, IF he had not disobeyed God. Before his disobedience, he was righteous and good. We use the term "innocent." He was completely righteous. But, ONE SIN is all it takes to make one unrighteous. He was no longer "perfect"; he was no longer "completely righteous." And, because we are his progeny, we SHARE in that imperfection, that unrighteousness. We, like him, now have the PROPENSITY to sin! And, through him, we all have become mortal! This is what Paul said,

Romans 5:12-21 (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Do animals who don't breath air have the breath of life. And what is the life of muscle stem cells that live up to 17 days after the breath of the human is gone?. One reason why organs can be transplanted is because they still have life in them. Man came from dirt which is made from alot of living things.

Edited March 19, 2023 by BeyondET

[Retrobyter]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's a misunderstanding of the etymological roots of the word.  It first came into use around the 1640s:

 evolve (v.)

1640s, "to unfold, open out, expand," from Latin evolvere "to unroll, roll out, roll forth, unfold," especially of books; figuratively "to make clear, disclose; to produce, develop," from assimilated form of ex "out" (see ex-) + volvere "to roll," from PIE root *wel- (3) "to turn, revolve."

https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolution

This is how it came to be used for "change."   Hence "evolution of auto design", "stellar evolution", "the evolution of the republican party voter" to list a few things found just now.  It has come to mean "change."

Shalom, The Barbarian.

Of course, this is a load of nonsense. It's NOT a "misunderstanding of the etymological roots of the word," for one can SEE the etymology in the very definition you quote!

It doesn't mean "change"; it means "to unfold, open out, expand," just as the etymology suggests!

Change is not always for the better. Democratic leftists sometimes forget this basic truth. If one is on top of a mountain, on its very peak, there's no way to go to get any higher! If one moves east, west, north, or south, one goes LOWER than his or her original position! The reason for basing one's beliefs on the authority of the Bible is to make sure that one is changing FOR THE BETTER, not for the worse! Change is not always a good thing! In fact, it can be a detriment to society, as we are seeing in these last 50 years or so!

"To vary" is "to change!" And, one can vary from the original DNA without changing the species or genus of a creature!

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Which is why Darwin preferred the more descriptive term "descent with modification."   Biological evolution merely means "change in allele frequencies in a population."

I don't think much of Darwin's view of the Bible or of God. Nick Spencer in his recent book Darwin and God (2009), wrote in the Introduction, 

'“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” So wrote Charles Darwin to John Fordyce on 7 May 1879.

'He died three years later, without changing his mind. “You have expressed my inward conviction,” he wrote to the author William Graham in one of his last letters, “that the Universe is not the result of chance."

'No atheist, Darwin deliberately avoided bashing religion. “I hardly see how religion & science can be kept…distinct,” he wrote to his friend, Brodie Innes, the vicar of Downe, “but…there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness.”

'How is it, then, that this gentle, respectful, humane agnostic has become the patron saint of modern, aggressive atheism?

'Perhaps, the modern, aggressive atheists reply, it is because Darwin also wrote to another correspondent in 1879, “Science has nothing to do with Christ.” Perhaps it is because he said the following year, “I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.” Perhaps it is because he said in his autobiography that, given that “the plain language of the text seems to [point towards]…everlasting punishment…I can…hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true.”'

Thus, by his own confession, he had the spirit of antichrist, according to John's epistles! And again, the assumption is to label it "DESCENT with modification!" Thus, it was a BIAS from which he operated and wrote.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Fortunately, genetics gives us a way to test that belief.   Turns out, DNA analyses confirm common descent.   The phylogenies based on DNA turn out to be almost identical to those base on phenotypes.   And where it doesn't we find analogy rather than homology, which indicates convergence.   Would you like to see how we know?

NO, thank you! Your bias colors your view! As such, you cannot see that the analysis of DNA actually confirms DIFFERENCE, and speaks NOTHING about "common descent!"

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Unfortunate.  You see, it quickly became apparent that DNA was the material that comprised genes.   And as you might know, genes determine heredity and therefore, your genetic relationship to parents and ancestors is coded in your genes.    It's how we can verify fatherhood, or one's descent from a distant ancestor (as done recently with the black descendants of Thomas Jefferson).   So we know it works.    Remarkably, such analyses have confirmed the ancestries evidenced in anatomical and fossil data.

MOST unfortunate! While it is true that DNA is the material that comprises genes and chromosomes, and that it can show heredity on a close scale, that is parenthood within human beings, the ASSUMPTION that it can show heredity between species and fossil data is a LEADING argument! By ignoring and even denying that God would use the same building blocks of genes found in the patterns of DNA to create other species or genera - biblical "kinds," allows "science" (falsely so-called) to CONTRADICT the Scriptures!

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I did most of the computer programming for my department back in the day when it was just getting underway.   My first stuff was in Fortran and the first survey tracking we did, was done on a Xerox 820 in C/PM.    Yes, l'm really old. 

I "cut my teeth" on Basic, Fortran, Pascal, and TRS-80 machine language. I've also studied RPG, Lisp, C, C++, and C#. My work for 4.5 years was done in COBOL. I've worked under the MS-DOS, AppleDOS, Linux, Unix, RSTS-E, and VMS operating systems, and performed some of my programming in text files. So, yep; we're both really old! My best work was to code a "skin" for spreadsheet programs to generate Lisp programs. (Lisp was jokingly said to be an acronym for "Lost in stupid parentheses!" But, spreadsheet programs, like Excel, are GREAT for handling parentheses and embedded functions! All I had to do was add functions that would be the commands for Lisp under the "formulas" tab.)

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

  I got my masters in Systems with a focus on biological systems.   Did some work on the Lotka-Voleterra model back then, and some related stuff on how resource allocation problems apply to natural selection in predators and prey.

This is interesting. You decided to go deep with a masters program, while I went wide with a couple of bachelor's degrees and AA's and AS's and several certificate programs. It gave me a wider variety.

What I find even more interesting is your work on natural selection in predators and prey! You DO realize, though, that before the Flood, all animals were herbivorous, right?

Genesis 1:24-31 (KJV)

24 And God said,

"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind":

and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

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."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

29 And God said,

"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have givenevery green herb for meat":

and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Then, after the Flood, we read,

Genesis 9:1-7 (KJV)

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."

So, from the Creation week until after the Flood, over 1700 years, there were no carnivores or omnivores. There were only herbivores.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

See above.  We can test that assumption with organisms of known descent.  Turns out, it does.  

EXCEPT that you don't HAVE any "organisms of KNOWN descent!"

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

BTW, we have now found all the bases for DNA and RNA in meteorites where they formed abiotically.  

Which means nothing without the genetic code! They are just chemicals: Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine (or Uracil).

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/all-of-the-bases-in-dna-and-rna-have-now-been-found-in-meteorites

You see, it doesn't indicate design; it shows us something much more awe-inspiring.   God created the universe with just a few simple rules (or maybe just one) to bring forth life as He intended.    Which is what the Bible tells us.  Those who would demote God to a mere "designer" are selling Him short.

Finding these things out, is reveling in the magnitude of an awesome God, the all-powerful creator (not a mere designer).

You're trying to fit God into human concepts.   Let that go.  He is beyond measure. 

Well, you're right about one thing. There IS a single rule which WE are to follow!

Deuteronomy 5:8-10 (KJV)

8 "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, 10And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."

Romans 1:18-25 (KJV)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's a testable belief.   And it turns out, you're right.  DNA and anatomy shows that all tetrapods have a common ancestor.  

A common creator Who used evolution to produce them.   You see, common descent shows two important things. 

1. genetic descent

As you see, organisms that are descended from others will show this in their DNA.

2. homologies    That is, the similarities are not in appearance or function,but in the tissues and organs that make them up.  

On the other hand, wings are analogous in tetrapods, having evolved at least three times.   So the wings of birds, bats, and pterosaurs "look alike", but are different in structure, showing that they evolved from different structures.  Analogy, not homology.  And genetics shows this with birds and bats.

And that again shows why homology, not analogy demonstrates common descent.    In tetrapods, wings evolved from forelimbs, but at different times and using different forelimb structures.    However, it appears that wings in insects evolved once, using the a specific struture (gills on the upper part of biramous appendages)   All insect wings examined so far, show the embryological anatomical, and genetic evidence for it.   It's a complex but interesting issue. Would you like to learn more about it?

And yes, there are transitional forms.  

What would be the advantage to an insect stinging a threat and then gutting itself as the stinger/poison sac remains in the threat?   The sac continues to pump toxin into the stung organism, harming it further, but the bee dies.   What good is that?   Well, if your hivemates are clones of yourself, it makes perfect evolutionary sense, because your death will make their survival (and the survival of your genes) more likely.  

The stinger is a highly-modified ovipositor and the poison glands are modified from glands used to deposit eggs.   Would you like to learn how we know that?

Dinosaurs are archosaurs, very, very different than lizards which are squamates. 

Beliefs are one thing; evidence matters.   Birds and alligators (and their kin) are the only remaining archosaurs on Earth. Birds and alligators are more similar genetically and in homology than alligators and lizards.   And we have very limited biochemical data on non-avian dinosaurs, but what we have shows them to be more closely related to birds than to lizards.    Would you like to see that?

Scientists reconstruct genome of common ancestor of crocodiles, birds, dinosaurs

https://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html

There is geochemical data on the way those things changed over the ages.   It's not what creationists imagined.   Would you  like to see that?

No, that is not in scripture.   It's an assumption based on man's wishes.

In fact, we have found T-rex teeth embedded in its intended prey:

Previous evidence for predation included T. rex fossil discoveries with preserved stomach contents that included the bones of a young ceratopsian (e.g., Triceratops or one of its kin). However, there was no evidence to conclude whether the ceratopsian was alive or dead when the T. rex made a snack of it.

By contrast, Burnham said the tooth was definitive evidence of hunting, after carefully measuring its length and the size of its serrations to ensure that it came from the mouth of a T. rex.

"Lo and behold, the tooth plotted out just exactly with T. rex -- the only known large theropod from the Hell Creek formation," he said. "We knew we had a T. rex tooth in the tail of a hadrosaur. Better yet, we knew the hadrosaur got away because the bone had begun to heal. Quite possibly it was being pursued by the T. rex when it was bitten. It was going in the right direction -- away. The hadrosaur escaped by some stroke of luck. The better luck is finding this fossil with the preserved evidence."

Because T. rex regularly shed its teeth, the predator went away hungry, but otherwise no worse for the encounter. It would have grown a new tooth to replace the one left behind in the hadrosaur's tail.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130716135841.htm

I don't doubt it. With creatures like T-Rex on the ark (in its much smaller, young-adult state) BECOMING carnivores after the Flood, many of them were hunted to extinction by men like Nimrod, "a mighty hunter before the LORD." This massive extinction was the basis for much of the legends and folklore of dragons and monsters, hunted by heroes and knights.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

As the YE creationist Kurt Wise points out, the fossil record contains a huge number of fossils confirming Darwin's predictions, all found after his book was published.  

I don't know much about Kurt Wise, but if he gives Darwin credit for his predictions, then I don't think he was that "wise."

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The number of predicted transitional forms found in my lifetime is huge.

The names came after the finds were examined.  They reflect the evidence.   So Australopithecus (southern ape man) is pretty descriptive.   Australopithecines are immediately transitional between species of forest apes and species of humans.   Would you like to learn about that?

You've been misled about that.  

Here's a chimpanzee upper jaw, with an Australopithecine jaw and a human jaw.   As you see, the Australopithecine jaw is transitional to the human jaw.  

 

Here are the hand bones of a chimp a human and a late Australopithecine.  Notice that A. sebida is transitional between human and chimp.    It has a more robust thumb, useful for handing tools, but it lacks the muscle insertions for the adductor pollicis, which allows humans to do a precise three-point grasp for fine work.   Which is exactly what we'd expect in the transition between hominoids and humans.

Let me know if you'd like more detail on any of this.

I'm sorry, but since when is Australopithicus sebida or a chimanzee the "image of God?" Again, this is all based on ASSUMPTIONS and BIAS! When you start with that assumed premise in your expectations, what would you think one would find?