How old is the earth?

[John Bauer]

Yes, a regression would be reverting to an earlier form. Landrace wheats (traditional, locally adapted) were used to develop the hybrid dwarf wheat.

Partially accurate. The reality is that a Japanese dwarf wheat, likely introduced from Korea, was crossed with a high-yielding American variety to produce a semi-dwarf wheat, Norin 10.

You said	The truth is
"Landrace wheats ..."	"A Japanese dwarf wheat ..."
"... (traditional, locally adapted) ..."	"... likely introduced from Korea ..."
"... were used to develop the hybrid ..."	"... was crossed with a high-yielding American variety to produce ..."
"... dwarf wheat."	"... a semi-dwarf wheat, Norin 10."

RhT 1b in dwarf wheat could be recessive.

No, it can't. The dwarfing allele Rht-B1b is semi-dominant—even one copy produces an intermediate height reduction (because the DELLA protein interferes with GA signaling in a dosage-dependent way):

• Rht-B1a—Rht-B1a = tall
• Rht-B1a—Rht-B1b = semi-dwarf
• Rht-B1b—Rht-B1b = fully dwarf

It can't even act recessive—because Rht-B1b exerts an effect even in single dose.

Dwarf wheat could also be genetically modified ...

It could be, yes—like any crop could be, using today's biotech tools. But that's a hypothetical, not the historical reality.

... as chemical and irradiation manipulation of genes were widely experimental in the 1920's and 1930's.

The timeline of mutagenesis technology and the breeding history of Norin 10 simply don't overlap in the way you're implying.

There were initial experiments in the 1920s and 1930s (with X-rays, not gamma rays), and these were research tools, not widespread agricultural breeding programs. Cobalt-60 wasn't even discovered (by nuclear reaction) until 1934, and gamma-ray facilities for agriculture came much later.

Again, Norin 10 was first produced in 1925, being registered and released 10 years later. It was preceded by Fultz-Daruma (1917), and Shiro-Daruma (1904)—the Rht-B1b mutation existing in all these lines way before mutagenesis technologies developed beyond the laboratory.

Mutation is mistake.

God doesn't make mistakes. In his providence God governs all natural processes, including mutations and even things we consider "random" (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29–30).

Mutations are just changes (in the nucleotide sequence of DNA), and not all changes are bad. Even in a fallen world, grace allows for variation that is useful and life-sustaining—like the dwarfing mutation in wheat that has fed untold millions.

(I would go so far as to say, theologically speaking, no change is bad.)

If, as you assert, RhT 1b is a mistake in recombination of genetic material specific to wheat, ...

Totally not what I said at all.

I said Rht-B1b is a specific nucleotide substitution (mutation)—namely, a "C" to "T" substitution at codon 383, converting a glutamine codon (CAA) into a stop codon (TAA), which produced a truncated protein that cannot bind gibberellins properly, making the plant gibberellin-insensitive. That resulted in a crop that has fed untold millions.

 

[John Bauer]

I don't see a regressions as that. I see a regression as the removal of certain genetic information rather than causing an enhancement of the fitness of the organism.

What if a mutation is just a change in certain genetic information, like a substituting a "C" with a "T" (from CAA to TAA)? No removal. Just a change. And what if that did cause an enhancement of the fitmess of the organism? For example, barley "ebr" mutants (mildew resistance).

Just as mutations can't add up over time and enhance a trait ...

Since we have direct evidence to the contrary (e.g., dwarf wheat), I will choose to ask, "What you mean by that?"

 

[QVQ]

God doesn't make mistakes. In his providence God governs all natural processes, including mutations and even things we consider "random" (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29–30).

The result of recombinaton and mutation is specific to that species.
RhT 1b cannot mutate in man because man does not have that gene.
So the only evolution of RhT 1b is a mutated recombination of Wheat DNA.
Nothing added, nothing subtracted, no evolution

There are certainly mistakes in copying DNA. And most are bad or useless.
And so far, "mutations" in irradiation, chemical, transgene insertion have resulted in 1) Sterile 2) not viable 3) revert to type.

I posted a quote on Post #501 concerning the isolation population controlled breeding of Darwin's Finches. The finches are #3, revert to type.
Any "speciation" between the Finches is variations within the species.

 

[CrowCross]

Just an Interesting Side note:
The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. A new article in Nature by Galápagos finch researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, “Speciation undone,” confirms what we’ve said here in the past — Galápagos finch species are capable of interbreeding — but adds a new twist: they’re interbreeding so much that in multiple cases, two “species” may be fusing back into one species.

I have no problem with speciation...the animals that came off the ark speciated.

 

[CrowCross]

Since we have direct evidence to the contrary (e.g., dwarf wheat), I will choose to ask, "What you mean by that?"

Descent with modification.....school book evolutionism is impossible.

Man didn't evolve from a lesser primate that split and made chimps.

 

[QVQ]

I have no problem with speciation...the animals that came off the ark speciated.

God created heaven and earth.

Darwinian Evolution was the religion of my childhood. Evoltution created All. Darwin, gospel, explained it all.
I studied the theory in school but it was mostly "repeat after me."
Then I was professionaly involved with livestock and farming
My hobbies were hybridizing plants and purebred animal

The Theory wasn't matching what I was seeing in real life. My anecdotes (as @John Bauer called them) from out on the rural route didn't match what I had been taught. Then the research I had to do about genetics, it looked as if Evolution was being disproved.

I don't have any special theory to replace it. The best I can do is "God created heaven and earth, Amen"
I will leave the theorizing to the geneticist who are gathering scientific evidence that is telling an entirely different story than Darwin.

 

[David Koberstein]

Some Christians think the earth is between 6,000 and 15,000 years old, coinciding with the Neolithic Age. Astronomers think it is 4.5 billion years old. Here is an attempt to resolve this incongruity.

Jesus turned water into wine in John 2:


How old was this wine?

If you asked the human observers/witnesses, the servants would say a few seconds old.

The story continued:


If you asked the expert, the banquet master, "How old is this wine?" He would say it was months or even years old.

So which answer is true?

Both are true, depending on the perspective. The supernatural perspective tells us that it was only a second old. The natural perspective tells us that it was at least some months old.

Similarly, in Genesis 1:


In the beginning, God created a 5-dimensional universe, 4-dimensional space-time, plus 1 spiritual dimension with dark matter and dark energy.


How old is the earth?

If we ask an astronomer from a natural perspective, he can only study present-day physical data based on scientific calculations. It is 4.5 billion years old. That's the scientific 4-D space-time perspective.

On the other hand, from the supernatural angle, if we read the passage literally, the present-day earth is only some thousands of years old. That's the biblical witnessed-time from the 5th-dimensional perspective.

So which answer is true?

Both are true depending on the time perspective. God created the earth with the embedded evolutionary records of billions of years of real history. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It focuses on the story of redemption. In terms of witnessed-time history, it is only some thousands of years old. On the other hand, from the scientific point of view, the earth is billions of years old.

This is different from Last Thursdayism because God tells me the contrary. God did not create the universe last Thursday. Genesis contradicts this. I can also contradict this. I was alive last Thursday. God was with me. God dwells in me. It happened in real live-time. I didn't see God create this universe last Thursday. I believe in the words of God, not Last Thursdayism.

Jesus spoke about it as a historical witnessed-time event in Mark 10:


From the perspective of scientific time, the details of this embedding are amazing:

• 24,000-year-old animal found alive, well, and ready to reproduce
• Fossils reveal what may be the oldest known case of the dino sniffles.

There are two different frameworks of time. Basically, witnessed-time started when Adam opened his eyes. On the other hand, space-time is measured by scientific calculations. Both are physically or spatially real in their respective frameworks of time. Even scientifically, there is something funny about time.

See also Adam, Eve, and evolution.

The current year on the Hebrew Calendar is 5785. Which means it has been 5785 years since creation.
This number comes from the ages of the Tanakh (Old Covenant) Jews.
Shalom Aleichem

 

[Rella]

The current year on the Hebrew Calendar is 5785. Which means it has been 5785 years since creation.
This number comes from the ages of the Tanakh (Old Covenant) Jews.
Shalom Aleichem

My question is ... are you a YEC?

I think there can be no doubt about your calendar but of the creation you mention... do you count that as of the very first when it is said the Spirit was hovering over the waters or could it be from the Creation of Adam? (I personally believe the actual earth we walk on is older)

I also have come to believe that the 6 creation period days are not 144 back to back literal hours. Not expecting you or anyone to believe this, I only am saying so others will know my beliefs.

BTW... I am NOT an evolutionist nor a big bang subscriber. I know our Heavenly Father is the one who made all, and when you see deep into space and the spectaculars there, of that there can be no doubt... . But I personally believe that Mankind (inclusive of all life... plant as well as animal) came later.... That the heavenly Father chose this planet to "make it happen" on.... to fulfill HIS purposes.

I ask because I know that Adam was created for a specific purpose, and that would be to get the bloodline started to fulfill what we are told of Jesus lineage and genealogy. Without Adam that would have failed.

Anyway, welcome to the forum... old friend.

Blessing always.

 

[David Koberstein]

My question is ... are you a YEC?

I think there can be no doubt about your calendar but of the creation you mention... do you count that as of the very first when it is said the Spirit was hovering over the waters or could it be from the Creation of Adam? (I personally believe the actual earth we walk on is older)

I also have come to believe that the 6 creation period days are not 144 back to back literal hours. Not expecting you or anyone to believe this, I only am saying so others will know my beliefs.

BTW... I am NOT an evolutionist nor a big bang subscriber. I know our Heavenly Father is the one who made all, and when you see deep into space and the spectaculars there, of that there can be no doubt... . But I personally believe that Mankind (inclusive of all life... plant as well as animal) came later.... That the heavenly Father chose this planet to "make it happen" on.... to fulfill HIS purposes.

I ask because I know that Adam was created for a specific purpose, and that would be to get the bloodline started to fulfill what we are told of Jesus lineage and genealogy. Without Adam that would have failed.

Anyway, welcome to the forum... old friend.

Blessing always.

Those are good questions! I don't think the Hebrew calendar is 100% accurate, but I do believe it is close to the actual age
of the earth give or take a few generations. I do believe in the 6 literal 24 hour day creation account. The Hebrew calendar
is a lunar calendar that relies on the rotation of the moon around the earth to determine time. Our Gregorian calendar is
a solar calendar that relies on the earth rotation about the sun to determine time. That's why I believe the Magi or wise men
at Yeshua's birth were actually astrologers and astronomers. They were always studying the sky for information about time
when they saw the star.
The Christmas carol "We Three Kings of Orient are" Who came up with this? Is not even remotely biblical. There was no 3
kings and they sure wasn't from the Orient. Lol
You have a very blessed day my friend in our Messiah!
Shalom Aleichem

 

[John Bauer]

... and they sure wasn't from the Orient. Lol

They certainly were from the Orient (east), as opposed to the Occident (west), these terms defined relative to Europe. The Orient included Asia Minor, the Middle East, and the Far East.

 

[David Koberstein]

Le

They certainly were from the Orient (east), as opposed to the Occident (west), these terms defined relative to Europe. The Orient included Asia Minor, the Middle East, and the Far East.

Let me enlighten you. Magi from the east came to Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). The Magi were Jewish sages and/or astronomers
wise men from Persia. These Magi came from the Medo-Persian Empire of Babylon. In the Diaspora, Jews during and after the
time of Yeshua lived in Persia and had been there since the time of the prophet Dani'el. Persia is modern day Iran which is about
900 miles east of Jerusalem. Ancient Babylon (Mesopotamia) is located about 50 miles south of Baghdad. There is nothing
Orient about this. This is the Middle East not Beijing, China

Shalom Aleichem

 

[John Bauer]

China is the Far East. Persia is the Middle East. Both are the Orient (from Anatolia to Japan).

 

[David Koberstein]

China is the Far East. Persia is the Middle East. Both are the Orient (from Anatolia to Japan).

Not so much

 

[John Bauer]

Not so much

Not so much what? Be specific.

 

[David Koberstein]

Not so much what? Be specific.

You failed geography 101
Shalom

 

[prism]

How old is the earth?​

6,975 yrs. (one's guess is as good as another's)

 

[John Bauer]

You failed geography 101
Shalom

How, exactly? China is not the Far East? Persia is not in the Middle East? The Orient is not from Asia Minor to the Far East?

 

[CrowCross]

How old is the earth?​

6,975 yrs. (one's guess is as good as another's)

3 days older than the sun and moon.

 

[David Koberstein]

How old is the earth?​

6,975 yrs. (one's guess is as good as another's)

The current Hebrew calendar is 5785.
Shalom

 

[Rella]

Not so much what? Be specific.

From a few links that I searched what countries are in the Orient.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/oriental.htm
Different parts of the world use the word "Oriental" differently.

Since this site is read all around the world, let me define Oriental to avoid confusion.

The Orient is the eastern part of Asia.

The Orient includes countries and regions like Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Asia is a much larger continent which includes places like India, Pakistan, Cambodia, Tibet, Nepal and most of Russia.

Since much Oriental photo gear now comes from several Oriental countries, it's far more precise to say Oriental rather than trying to delineate Japanese or Chinese.
https://www.answers.com/travel-destinations/What_countries_are_in_the_Orient
Orient is a figure of speech. It is what many people call anything east of Europe, including Asia.

Some countries that would be considered Oriental are:

• Afghanistan
• Baluchistan
• Burma
• Cambodia
• India
• Indonesia
• Japan
• Korea
• Laos
• Malaysia
• Manchuria
• Mongolia
• Pakistan
• Philippines
• Singapore
• Sinosphere
• Sri Lanka
• Taiwan
• Tibet
• Vietnam
• Xinjiang

https://www.vedantu.com/question-an...-social-science-cbse-5fed54d70b5d6f75fa31e5f0
Complete answer:

• The Oriental world refers to the East from Europe’s perspective. Anything or culture belonging to the East was called ‘oriental’ by the Europeans.
• It refers basically to the continent of Asia, however, it’s important to remember that the European scholars who coined this term never gave a proper definition to it.
• The countries which are mostly considered part of the Oriental world are China, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and other East Asian nations.
• The oriental countries are majorly tropical. The Asian continent is the largest and the youngest continent in the world and as a result, has very complex geography.

Note: In present-day Europe, especially Britain, the term Oriental is still used sometimes to refer to people from Southeast Asia. Whereas the term ‘Asian’ is used for people of South Asia, from countries like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc.

Now... I do believe we can safely say the Orient is located East of the Atlantic and West of the Pacific. LOL