[_ Old Earth _] Theistic Evolution

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,

It opposes special creationism, but of course that's not the same thing as Bible creation.

I see. So there is a possibility that evolution and Genesis have harmony with each other?

Ge 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good

On the third day all plants were created on the same day, after their seeding seed kind. The Hebrew places the verb and noun forms together (is zera zera) to show they were programmed for change immediately because all DNA code for change was present on the same day of their creation.

No natural sunlight was created as yet.

Ge 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth swarming swarmer that hath life
and birds
and sea mammals
on the fifth day....

Again we see the use of two Hebrew words together with verb and noun forms, the (sharats,sharats)
indicating that the speciation ability for changes was already all completely coded within the DNA of all the kinds of creature God made.

Notice the sea mammals were made before the land animals.

Ge 1:25 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:

On the sixth day the land animals and insects were made after their kind....
And lastly on the sixth day mankind was a special creation and formation as God knelt by the ground and made Adam from the Adamah.

During the sixth day God brought the land animal kinds to Him one by one to be named by Adam

Ge 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

SO every kind of creature was fully functional and made in rapid time....


It was after this that God made Adam a woman because He saw each kind had partners....

Ge 2:21 ¶ And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

And God made a woman from Adam side....

Ge 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

We are told God rested from Creation after 6 days and spent time with Adam and Eve during the 7th day.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.
The Bible tells us Creation was spoken into existence (except mankind which was specially formed)

Isa 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Every kind was intentionally created by name.

Isa 42:5 ¶ Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out;
The heavens were stretched out, this makes the stars look older than they really are, because time can be stretched out too...but the earth remains near the centre of our universe as young as the first day it was created.

This order and account of creation differs widely from evolution does it not?

Where are the Bible texts that support the evolution account ?

Shalom

 

[Free]

Free,

I have done no such thing. It really seems as though you are not reading what I am writing. I have made it very clear that the Bible says there were six days of creating and God rested on the seventh.

Oh I am sorry...it seems we believe in the same thing, that God created the earth with all the animals and plants in six days and rested on the seventh day. My apologies for not realizing your theology all along.

Shalom

From what you said before, you believe creation took place in seven days and God rested on the eighth. Oh well. So you must also agree that yom has at least four different meanings and that we cannot necessarily say the days were literal 24-hour days, especially the seventh, correct? Of course, I never included creation of the earth in any of the days and in fact made the point that it was created at some unknown time prior to the first day. Do you also agree with that?

 

[Barbarian]

So there is a possibility that evolution and Genesis have harmony with each other?

They are completely compatible.

Ge 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good

Yes, like that.

On the third day all plants were created on the same day, after their seeding seed kind. The Hebrew places the verb and noun forms together (is zera zera) to show they were programmed for change immediately because all DNA code for change was present on the same day of their creation.

Since that's an addition to Genesis, it's not a problem. Yes, Genesis and science are incompatible with YE creationism.

Ge 1:20

¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth swarming swarmer that hath life
and birds
and sea mammals
on the fifth day....

Again we see the use of two Hebrew words together with verb and noun forms, the (sharats,sharats)
indicating that the speciation ability for changes was already all completely coded within the DNA of all the kinds of creature God made.

Again, your statement is an addition to what the Bible says. So not a concern for any Biblical Christian.

This order and account of creation differs widely from evolution does it not?

Your reworking of Genesis does. But of course, the original does not.

Where are the Bible texts that support the evolution account ?

I don't see any Bible texts that support protons or chloroplasts, either. And certainly, nothing therein supports "speciation ability coded within DNA."

Instead of adding to it, why not just spend some time learning what it actually says?

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Free,

From what you said before, you believe creation took place in seven days and God rested on the eighth.
I believe God created all things in seven literal days, six of those days was creating matter, animals and humans; and on the seventh day God created time, a special ceasing time for a single day, known in Hebrew as Shabbath, or the Sabbath day. A part of the natural law of God's love, is it's not good to work all the time, that one should work six days and refresh on the seventh day.

Hope that is a little clearer...

So you must also agree that yom has at least four different meanings and that we cannot necessarily say the days were literal 24-hour days, especially the seventh, correct?

I agree with you yom is specially a cycle of 12 hours of daylight, and this also includes the night times as well, making yom a 24 hour day, as we come to understand the term day. All the contexts you present do not make yom into anything different. Some contexts have Jacob grieving day after day for his lost sons, but this is not a statement about a larger time, only that he grieved daily in an ongoing sense.

It's very important we uphold a Creation Week of time, because it has a typology and parallel for humans to work six days and rest the seventh day, just as God did...that makes logical sense.

I am not sure what is to be gained by making the Creation account into longer periods of time? What do you gain by doing this ? Just to agree with science ? Since when is science ever right about anything? Science is the making of man's ideas about God, but I prefer to follow my Bible as it reads.

Of course, I never included creation of the earth in any of the days and in fact made the point that it was created at some unknown time prior to the first day. Do you also agree with that?

No, because it says in the very first statement regarding time:-

Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the day one.

All translations rearrange the Hebrew echad into first....day....but the Hebrew says "day one" In other words time had nothing to compared it to....this was the beginning of time....

In fact if you look at Robert Gentry polonium halo studies God created the granites in just under 3 minutes, and this kind of creating makes sense to fit an earth into a single day. However scholars rubbish Gentry's paper like all scholars can if they want to.

Again why do we Christian's have to have a world that is old? Because science evidence says so ? When Mt St Helens erupted rocks formed only 11 years ago were found to be between 500000 years to 2 million years old, so clearly the radioactive dating process is flawed...

Show me evidence the earth is old, and I will show you evidence the earth is young as the Bible says it is.

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Jesus is speaking here saying mankind was at the beginning of Creation, not 4 billion or 2 million years into evolutionary time lines.

Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian

They are completely compatible.

Really? I had to teach evolution for years in schools as a science teacher, and evolution is completely different to Bible Genesis account.

Evolution starts off with the big bang and the sun made first.

Water mammals evolved after some land animals, whereas the Bible says water mammals were created first.
Evolution says insects came with land animals and birds, whereas the Bible says bird were created first.
Evolution says man evolved from apes, whereas the Bible says God specially formed mankind.

Evolution says species modified over time through natural selection, whereas the Bible says all kinds were created on a single day, named by Adam on a single day, and later changed when the fall of mankind happened but only within limits of their kind.

There is not a single example of evolution speciation making a creature totally different to itself, ie creating brand new DNA information...all examples of evolution is devolution. Since the fall genetics is running downhill, things are not evolving into better fitness at all. Evolution as a process does not exist ! All we see today is devolution and the Creation concept of natural selection in order to survive in a changing world.

I am not sure what evolution means to you but it is NOT the science meaning nor what Darwin understood evolution to mean.
Shalom

 

[rthom7]

http://creation.com/focus-342
Darwin did not like Lyell’s view that there was no evidence for any gradual ‘transmutation’, or changing of one kind of animal into another, or for the transformation of simpler creatures into more complex ones. We know this thanks to the recent online digitization of Darwin’s handwritten comments in 419 books of his personal library. In the margin on page 442 of Volume II of Principles of Geology, next to a paragraph where Lyell said there were “defined limits” to “variation from the original type” of each creature, Darwin hand-wrote: “if this were true[,] adios theory”.

Darwin did not Lyell's concept of kinds as the Bible describes kinds....therefore Darwin opposed the Bible account of kinds....Evolution does not even recognize kinds, but the Bible does....

Therefore the Bible Genesis and Evolution are not the same....
Shalom

 

[rthom7]

Darwin writes in Origins of Species 1859:

We can to a certain extent understand how it is that there is so
much beauty throughout nature; for this may be largely attributed
to the agency of selection. That beauty, according to our sense of
it, is not universal, must be admitted by every one who will look at
some venomous snakes, at some fishes, and at certain hideous
bats with a distorted resemblance to the human face. Sexual
selection has given the most brilliant colours, elegant patterns,
and other ornaments to the males, and sometimes to both sexes
of many birds, butterflies and other animals. With birds it has
often rendered the voice of the male musical to the female, as
well as to our ears. Flowers and fruit have been rendered
conspicuous by brilliant colours in contrast with the green foliage,
in order that the flowers may be easily seen, visited and fertilised
by insects, and the seeds disseminated by birds. How it comes
that certain colours, sounds and forms should give pleasure to
man and the lower animals, that is, how the sense of beauty in its
simplest form was first acquired, we do not know any more than
how certain odours and flavours were first rendered agreeable.

Darwin sees beauty as simply sexual attraction, not to just colour the world as a Designer would.
View attachment 6220

Actually the ‘glass’ wing areas are missing a feature of coloured butterfly wings—scales.
So, colourful (and especially iridescent) butterflies reflect more strongly the Creator’s handiwork than do glasswings. In this post-Fall ‘bondage to decay’ (Romans 8:19–22), glasswings have evidently lost genetic information (for scales)—in common with other observed mutations.
Such mutations demonstrate ‘devolution’, not evolution.4 Natural selection sometimes favours defects—e.g. the glasswing is likely less visible to predators than are colourful butterflies. But this is not evolution—no new information has been produced, notwithstanding that Pteronymia has been given its own species name, separate from other (coloured) types of Lycaenid butterflies.5
And the fact that the glasswing can fly, just like butterflies with scales,6 confounds evolutionists on two counts. First, the aerodynamic intricacies of butterfly flight defy evolutionary explanation, pointing instead to a Creator.6 Second, the glasswing ‘proves scales are not needed for flight’,7 indicating that the original colourful butterflies were ‘over-engineered’ for flight.8
So why did the Creator bother to make colourful butterflies?
Maybe it’s because God appreciates beauty, and, given that we’re made in His image, He knew that we would, too. http://creation.com/glasswing

Again proof Darwin did not consider God a part of evolution...Evolution is a theory that opposes God....
Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

They are completely compatible.
(Barbarian observes that Genesis and evolution are completely compatible)

Really?

Yep. Christians since St. Augustine's time have reallized this.

I had to teach evolution for years in schools as a science teacher, and evolution is completely different to Bible Genesis account.

I have noticed that you often express errors about what evolutionary theory says. So, I'm wondering how you could have taught it. Not that many teachers haven't done a miserable job of teaching it.

Evolution starts off with the big bang and the sun made first.

That's a good example. Evolutionary theory begins by assuming the existence of living things, and describes how populations of them change. You never taught evolution; you merely taught your misconceptions of it.

Evolution says species modified over time through natural selection, whereas the Bible says all kinds were created on a single day,

If you try to revise Genesis into a literal history, it does say in one place that God did it in a single day, and in another chapter it says He did it over several days. This is a huge problem for YE creationism, but not for a Christian.

named by Adam on a single day, and later changed when the fall of mankind happened but only within limits of their kind.

That's not what the Bible says. It's just someone's attempt to change it a little to make it more acceptable to him. But let's see if you can give me a testable definition of "kind."

[INTRO]There is not a single example of evolution speciation making a creature totally different to itself,[/quote]

Evolutionary theory would be overturned if that could be shown. Evolution never makes anything de novo. It is alway a modification of something already there.

ie creating brand new DNA information...

Every new mutation increases information in a population. Would you like to see the numbers for that?

all examples of evolution is devolution.

"Devolution" has no meaning in science usually evolution increases fitness. sometimes, it doesn't. That's all there is.

Since the fall genetics is running downhill, things are not evolving into better fitness at all.

That belief is contradicted by the many favorable mutations and increases in fitness documented by scientists. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

I am not sure what evolution means to you

Change in allele frequency over time in a population, producing changes in the population.

but it is NOT the science meaning

Hmmm ...

http://groups.molbiosci.northwester...y/Definitions/Def-B/biological_evolution.html

Turns out that it is.

nor what Darwin understood evolution to mean.

Darwin didn't know about genetics. For him it was merely "descent with modification."

 

[turnorburn]

(Barbarian observes that Genesis and evolution are completely compatible)

That's not true..

Christians since St. Augustine's time have realized this.

That's not true either..

Genesis & Evolution Are Not Compatible

Hebrews Chapter 11 and verse 3 states, "By faith we understand that the ages were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." The Bible teaches us that what is taught in the first three Chapters of the Book of Genesis must be taken literally and must be accepted by faith. God does not ask us to accept this by faith, though, without proof or verification. He gave us absolute proof that what Moses recorded in the first three Chapters of Genesis is absolutely historically true. What is this absolute proof? His bringing Jesus Christ back from the dead Physical Alive!

No matter what theory of creation one has, if it is not based on Genesis as it stands and at face value, crumbles and falls to the ground in the light of the total context of Scripture. Problems which arise are the following: the Bible teaches that before Adam and Eve sinned there was no death in the world, that death came about as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin and rebellion against God. Paul the Apostle wrote, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" (Rom 5:12). The Old Earth-Young Adam theory teaches that death was a natural part of nature before Adam came into being and continued after Adam. This teaching also contradicts the Bible’s teaching that Eve is the mother of all living humans.

http://www.layevangelism.com/bastxbk/sections/sect-7/sec7-9.htm

tob

 

[rthom7]

Greetings Barbarian,



I have noticed that you often express errors about what evolutionary theory says. So, I'm wondering how you could have taught it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

OK is this what you mean by evolution Barbarian ?

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The Explanation:
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

Leaves on trees change color and fall over several weeks.

Mountain ranges erode over millions of years.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

A genealogy illustrates change with inheritance over a small number of years.

Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

This is a reproduction of the first webpage.....Now is this your evolution ? Because if it is it is NOT the creation account found in Scripture.

Shalom



Every new mutation increases information in a population. Would you like to see the numbers for that?

"Devolution" has no meaning in science usually evolution increases fitness. sometimes, it doesn't. That's all there is.


That belief is contradicted by the many favorable mutations and increases in fitness documented by scientists. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

We have been through dozen of papers before Barbarian and you didn't show me anything at all. Just answer my question above, is the Berkley website explaining your concept of evolution (as well as Darwin saw it) or not ? a simple yes / no will suffice.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

I have noticed that you often express errors about what evolutionary theory says. So, I'm wondering how you could have taught it.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

OK is this what you mean by evolution Barbarian ?

The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The Explanation:
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

A genealogy illustrates change with inheritance over a small number of years.

Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

.Now is this your evolution ?

That is evolution. I bolded things a bit, because you seemed a bit unsure of what it says.

Because if it is it is NOT the creation account found in Scripture.

It entirely consistent with the creation account found in scripture. God didn't say how He did it, He merely said that He did it. As you know, a literal re-interpretation doesn't work, since in one chapter, a literal reading would have life produced in a few days, and in another chapter of Genesis, a literal reading would have it in one day.

Every new mutation increases information in a population. Would you like to see the numbers for that?

"Devolution" has no meaning in science usually evolution increases fitness. sometimes, it doesn't. That's all there is.

That belief is contradicted by the many favorable mutations and increases in fitness documented by scientists. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

We have been through dozen of papers before Barbarian and you didn't show me anything at all.

Simple denial isn't going to help at this point. Here's an information problem for you:

A population has two alleles for a particular gene, each with a frequency of 0.5. A mutation produces a new allele and eventually the balance is each one with a frequency of 0.333. What is the information content with regard to this gene before and after the new allele? If you can answer that, you know something about information in organisms. Let me know what you think. Hint: "information" doesn't mean what most creationists assume.

And you've seen examples of fitness increases, including the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system, and I believe the evolution of a new digestive organ. I'll be pleased to document these and other again, if you like.

Just answer my question above, is the Berkley website explaining your concept of evolution

That's what "evolution" means in biological science.

(as well as Darwin saw it) or not ?

The major difference between Darwin and modern evolutionary theory is that Darwin didn't know about genes. Too bad; it cleared up a serious objection to his theory, since it makes clear how a favorable mutation can spread and increase fitness in population. In Darwin's time, it was assumed that heredity was like mixing paint, and so it appeared that a new feature would disappear like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. But since Mendel showed it was like sorting beads, that objection is now gone.

a simple yes / no will suffice.

If this is unclear, let me know.

 

[turnorburn]

What you're asking doesn't even make sense. The Bible very clearly uses yom for different periods of time. Your argument is with Scripture and how it uses yom, which has absolutely nothing to with time changing.

There, even a child could understand.

It was in reference to your statement given here Free "The whole point is that day seven begins but doesn't end; it has not ended"

How is a child to understand that?

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Says he ended his work i don't see anything about him extending his work?

tob

 

[Free]

It was in reference to your statement given here Free "The whole point is that day seven begins but doesn't end; it has not ended"

How is a child to understand that?

Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

Says he ended his work i don't see anything about him extending his work?

tob

What I said doesn't suggest that he extended his work. In fact, I clearly stated that he ceased from all creation activity, which supports the idea that the seventh day is continuing; he is still resting from creation activity. If the seventh day ended, that would imply that he is back at work, creating.

 

[Barbarian]

If each of us is created by God, I'd say His creation continues. The meaning of "rest" in the creation is not clearly one of lasting inactivity. This is clearly an allegory for the Sabbath and to make a point for us. After all, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

 

[turnorburn]

Now this conversation has the two of you disagreeing one says God ceased from his work the other says he continues..

Free says: "I clearly stated that he ceased from all creation activity"

Barbarian says: "I'd say His creation continues"

easy for a child to understand? i believe its easier to understand..

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

tob

 

[Free]

Greetings Free,

From what you said before, you believe creation took place in seven days and God rested on the eighth.
I believe God created all things in seven literal days, six of those days was creating matter, animals and humans; and on the seventh day God created time, a special ceasing time for a single day, known in Hebrew as Shabbath, or the Sabbath day. A part of the natural law of God's love, is it's not good to work all the time, that one should work six days and refresh on the seventh day.

Hope that is a little clearer...

Not really. The Bible quite clearly states that God created all things in six days, not seven like you are claiming. The seventh day was for rest only. He didn't create rest, he rested, and then told us to do the same.

So you must also agree that yom has at least four different meanings and that we cannot necessarily say the days were literal 24-hour days, especially the seventh, correct?

I agree with you yom is specially a cycle of 12 hours of daylight, and this also includes the night times as well, making yom a 24 hour day, as we come to understand the term day. All the contexts you present do not make yom into anything different. Some contexts have Jacob grieving day after day for his lost sons, but this is not a statement about a larger time, only that he grieved daily in an ongoing sense.

So you agree then that yom has at least two different meanings:

1. 12 hours of daylight.
2. A 24-hour day.

That's good to see but it does make me wonder why you reject the other two meanings. The contexts I gave show that there are at least two other meanings.

It's very important we uphold a Creation Week of time, because it has a typology and parallel for humans to work six days and rest the seventh day, just as God did...that makes logical sense.

And nothing I've posted suggests otherwise.

I am not sure what is to be gained by making the Creation account into longer periods of time? What do you gain by doing this ? Just to agree with science ? Since when is science ever right about anything? Science is the making of man's ideas about God, but I prefer to follow my Bible as it reads.

"Since when is science ever right about anything?" Seriously? You want to use that as a counter argument? We should ask Barbarian but it might be about the same to list the things science has been right about. Science is a God-given ability for man to be able to discover things about nature, which in turn point to God. Science and Scripture agree, since both are given by God, but how we interpret things is what causes disagreement. It can very well be that our understanding of what Scripture says is wrong; it isn't always science that is wrong when there is disagreement between the two.

Of course, I never included creation of the earth in any of the days and in fact made the point that it was created at some unknown time prior to the first day. Do you also agree with that?

No, because it says in the very first statement regarding time:-

Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the day one.

All translations rearrange the Hebrew echad into first....day....but the Hebrew says "day one" In other words time had nothing to compared it to....this was the beginning of time....

No, time itself begins in verse 1. The moment something came into existence, time began; it cannot be any other way. But that argument doesn't even address the point I made.

Show me evidence the earth is old, and I will show you evidence the earth is young as the Bible says it is.

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Jesus is speaking here saying mankind was at the beginning of Creation, not 4 billion or 2 million years into evolutionary time lines.

So where is your evidence? The fact remains that not once in Scripture is the age of the earth given. It simply is not addressed.

 

[Free]

Now this conversation has the two of you disagreeing one says God ceased from his work the other says he continues..

Free says: "I clearly stated that he ceased from all creation activity"

Barbarian says: "I'd say His creation continues"

easy for a child to understand? i believe its easier to understand..

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

tob

Disagreement on something--possibly terms in this case--does not mean that things aren't easy enough for a child to understand. What I said is easy to understand and what Barbarian said is easy to understand. Disagreement doesn't change that.

 

[rthom7]

Free,

Not really. The Bible quite clearly states that God created all things in six days, not seven like you are claiming. The seventh day was for rest only. He didn't create rest, he rested, and then told us to do the same.
Arr yes but by resting one day, God creates a week of time, not founded on celestial bodies, but only by counting seven days....so by resting and adding another day, God creates time on the seventh day, time for God and for refreshing ourselves in God. Hope this helps.

So you agree then that yom has at least two different meanings:

1. 12 hours of daylight.
2. A 24-hour day.

That's good to see but it does make me wonder why you reject the other two meanings. The contexts I gave show that there are at least two other meanings.

Sorry but I see nothing in the contexts for anything basically but a day, part of day, or daily of days with the meaning of yom, basically it means a day.




"Since when is science ever right about anything?" Seriously? You want to use that as a counter argument? We should ask Barbarian but it might be about the same to list the things science has been right about. Science is a God-given ability for man to be able to discover things about nature, which in turn point to God.

Correct

Science and Scripture agree, since both are given by God, but how we interpret things is what causes disagreement. It can very well be that our understanding of what Scripture says is wrong; it isn't always science that is wrong when there is disagreement between the two.

The Bible says the word is pure and true, and trustworthy....Science is just man's revelation of God's work and thus impure, sometimes untrue, biased and imperfect.

No, time itself begins in verse 1. The moment something came into existence, time began; it cannot be any other way.
Correct time does begin when light floods over the earth during it's creation.


So where is your evidence? The fact remains that not once in Scripture is the age of the earth given. It simply is not addressed.

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Jesus said mankind was at the beginning of creation as man and wife, not at the tail end of creation in a timeline. A Catholic priest calculated the age of the earth for humans as 6,000 years roughly. You can calculate the age of each lineage descendent since Adam to Christ..

Hope this helps
SHalom

 

[rthom7]

Barbarian,

I am so glad you finally agree on a evolution process we both understand, even it comes from Berkley university....

They have diagram showing the species coming from a single ancestor...they also say the same in words....

View attachment 6222

The problem is God created all creatures according to kinds...and each was to show speciation according to its kind....Biologically a kind must be a family concept of animal broader than a species....

What science needs to do is to confirm what is "myin" at a genetics level, instead of mapping the genome of species, why not map the entire DNA including the junk bits to find out what is common within species of certain myin groups? My prediction is common myin fragments of DNA will exist within kind creatures and other myin fragments will exist for other kind creatures.

However evolution model on the left is very different to the Bible model on the right....

We know on the sixth day God made man and land animals...in Genesis 1.

So Genesis 2 is a detailed picture of the account in Genesis 1 especially the Eden home.
Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

Here is the detail of day 6, when man was being formed

Ge 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

It is also clear all animals including man were formed from the dust of the ground, spoken into existence and brought to the man the same day for naming each kind.

Ge 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

So each animal was named on the day they were created...

Now there is a hard verse in this chapter...
Ge 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Generations is a long process, day is a short process, what this means I am not sure. I suspect it talking about relativity...time is relative....Professor Schroeder speaks better on this verse.

Now Barbarian evolution does not speak of kinds. The Bible speaks of kinds. Therefore they are NOT the same.

Shalom

 

[Barbarian]

Why is equating "science" with "knowledge" a serious error ?

Because science is just a method, limited to the natural universe. There are other ways of knowing.

Isn't that what spiritual science does?

That's like asking what leprechauns do.

I see, Free. So why do non-believers use evolution?

Because science is based on evidence, meaning people of all beliefs, or even no beliefs at all, can use it.

Does that not conflict with a believer who also uses evolution?

No more than an atheistic plumber conflicts with a believer who is also a plumber.

I know science people use "evolution" a lot

Scientists talking about science. Go figure.

most do not believe in God, and are "Naturalists"

The last department I was in, the chair was an Episcopalian, one Catholic, several were Jewish, there was at least one Muslim, and a few who never mentioned what they believed.

is this a religion?

No. Bacteriology, like the rest of science, isn't about religion.

And so is "evolution" a religious term.

Not for scientists.