Young Earth/Old Earth

[Dave_Regenerated]

Sounds like you didn't read in depth (much less rebut). The same probability arguments we use against a naturalistic origin of life support human-primate common ancestry. If we recognize one we must recognize the other to avoid special pleading

That's like saying you didn't see the ape man at the Natural History Museum because you did not want to know it was just a plastic wax model and not the real thing. I don't have to read the explanations for the so called "data" if the subheadings and heading with pictures don't work with human common sense, even less likely trying to explain evolution with 3 tiny examples. It's just not science. It's speculation. As to the same probability arguments, as you put it, this is just semantics trying to equate two things that are absolutely unrelated. There is absolutely no relation between the type of arguments people use and saying that the theory of evolution is scientific simply by using the same types of mental logic.

That's a different topic than humans-primates common ancestry. Our current scientific evidence suggests that life can NOT emerge naturally from nonlife (See, 'Paradoxes in the Origin of Life).

I'm afraid we can't hand wave the lexical definitions away. Regardless of Martin Luther's views, the Masoretic and Septuagint teach that on Day 2 God created some type of solid support structure 'firmament' (raqia/stereoma) in the midst of the waters to separate the waters and then on Day 4 set the sun, moon, and stars "in" this firmament *below* the rainwater source for Noah's Flood.

The law of biogenesis adequately debunks evolution theory claiming to explain the origin of life. Don't forget, it was Darwin who wrote a book with the Title "On the origin of species" and he clearly failed to answer the title of his own book when he failed at explaining descent. It's the descent part of this that is the whole argument here.

I have no problem with the idea the Bible says there was a "firmament" covering the earth made out of water that collapsed at Noah's flood because that has nothing to do with what I said about your characterisation of Martin Luther being inadequate, as I explained.

 

[TB2]

That's like saying you didn't see the ape man at the Natural History Museum because you did not want to know it was just a plastic wax model and not the real thing. I don't have to read the explanations for the so called "data" if the subheadings and heading with pictures don't work with human common sense, even less likely trying to explain evolution with 3 tiny examples. It's just not science. It's speculation. As to the same probability arguments, as you put it, this is just semantics trying to equate two things that are absolutely unrelated. There is absolutely no relation between the type of arguments people use and saying that the theory of evolution is scientific simply by using the same types of mental logic.

The point is you haven't engaged with the argument, and you're not required to. You don't have to engage if you don't want to. But you also can't just hand wave it away and pretend you've rebutted anything when you haven't.

The law of biogenesis adequately debunks evolution theory claiming to explain the origin of life. Don't forget, it was Darwin who wrote a book with the Title "On the origin of species" and he clearly failed to answer the title of his own book when he failed at explaining descent. It's the descent part of this that is the whole argument here.

You're conflating two different fields. Evolutionary biology is a separate field from the origin of life research field. They address different questions. As I said, our scientific evidence to date suggests that life can NOT emerge from nonlife. Evidence for common ancestry (once you have life) is a separate question.

I have no problem with the idea the Bible says there was a "firmament" covering the earth made out of water that collapsed at Noah's flood

The two are separate. The solid firmament raqia/stereoma was not made of water but separated the "waters above" from the "waters below." The Greek/Hebrew words used (stereoma/raqia) indicate a solid support structure of some kind and is consistent with the prescientific ancient understanding of the 'sky' as solid with the sun, moon, stars afixed to this solid structure. The Masoretic and Septuagint teach this view and this was the view of the church (that the firmament created on Day 2 was some type of solid structure) until the Copernican Revolution. Even the word "firmament" (KJV) is a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate firmamentum (meaning that which is firm), which in turn is a translation of the Greek stereoma (solid support) in the Greek OT/Septuagint (in use in Jesus's day).

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

The point is you haven't engaged with the argument, and you're not required to. You don't have to engage if you don't want to. But you also can't just hand wave it away and pretend you've rebutted anything when you haven't.

It's already been rebutted and I don't need to add to it. I think you are wrong on this. I can hand wave it away because you cannot explain the tremendously huge lack of transitional fossils.

You're conflating two different fields. Evolutionary biology is a separate field from the origin of life research field. They address different questions. As I said, our scientific evidence to date suggests that life can NOT emerge from nonlife. Evidence for common ancestry (once you have life) is a separate question.

No. I am not conflating them. I explained they are two different things. It should be obvious from what I said. But apparently not.

The two are separate. The solid firmament raqia/stereoma was not made of water but separated the "waters above" from the "waters below." The Greek/Hebrew words used (stereoma/raqia) indicate a solid support structure of some kind and is consistent with the prescientific ancient understanding of the 'sky' as solid with the sun, moon, stars afixed to this solid structure. The Masoretic and Septuagint teach this view and this was the view of the church (that the firmament created on Day 2 was some type of solid structure) until the Copernican Revolution. Even the word "firmament" (KJV) is a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate firmamentum (meaning that which is firm), which in turn is a translation of the Greek stereoma (solid support) in the Greek OT/Septuagint (in use in Jesus's day).

What does that have to do with the fact that your presentation of Martin Luther is wrong?

 

[TB2]

It's already been rebutted and I don't need to add to it. I think you are wrong on this. I can hand wave it away because you cannot explain the tremendously huge lack of transitional fossils

Perhaps we're speaking of two different things. I'm referring to this: the link I gave: Scientific evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that humans-primates share a common ancestor (see the first two posts in that thread).

What does that have to do with the fact that your presentation of Martin Luther is wrong?

I don't believe that it is wrong. But more important is what Scripture actually says

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Perhaps we're speaking of two different things. I'm referring to this: the link I gave: Scientific evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that humans-primates share a common ancestor (see the first two posts in that thread).

There's no need to repeat yourself. I looked and read that thread several times and cannot see the tremendous lack of transitional fossils.

I don't believe that it is wrong. But more important is what Scripture actually says

I believe it is wrong because I already explained why I think it is wrong. What the Bible says is a completely different topic. Martin Luther was misrepresented in a kind of teenage schoolboy IQ level attack that exposed itself. It's just not possible to conclude from the words of Luther that he thought the earth had a dome over it where all the stars are because he knew this "dome" (that word is not in the Hebrew Bible anywhere) went away at Noah's flood. What I believe is happening here is that people are not old enough to read properly. It takes time and life experience and study to grasp the meaning of literature.

 

[TB2]

There's no need to repeat yourself. I looked and read that thread several times and cannot see the tremendous lack of transitional fossils.

My link was not about transitional fossils (!) but endogenous retroviruses

 

[GeneZ]

Evolutionists don't actually come up with the dates. Geochronology is an entirely separate field from evolutionary biology

We have so much lying going on with near constant false information designed to propagandize mankind its hard to believe anyone who is in opposition to the Word of God will have anything accurate to say. If accuracy is given? Its only to cover the taste of the lying blended in their salad.

Everything has to be a lie in the Devil's world if he is to successfully establish his own alter reality to reign in. Truth is seen as a threat.
To find truth and to walk in it, is God giving a faithful believer a protective bubble to walk in.

Its not complex. Men in this world will lie as a way of life and for getting ahead.

In contrast to evolution theory.. God created man and woman's souls instantly 'out from nothing.'
Genesis 1:27 -"Bara!" No evolution.

On the other hand, the human bodies were not created 'out from nothing. Instead, Adam's body was molded
and formed (jatsar) by means of using the elements of the earth. No monkey transformation going on.

If we got here by evolution the Bible could have easily revealed it. If we came from some form of chimpanzee?
It could have easily been told and understood by those alive at the time of writing.

.........

 

[GeneZ]

My link was not about transitional fossils (!) but endogenous retroviruses

If there were real transitional fossils we would not be looking for them...
We would not be straining to make something into one like we see being done.
They would be plentiful and self evident.

 

[TB2]

We have so much lying going on with near constant false information designed to propagandize mankind its hard to believe anyone who is in opposition to the Word of God will have anything accurate to say. If accuracy is given? Its only to cover the taste of the lying blended in their salad.

Everything has to be a lie in the Devil's world if he is to successfully establish his own alter reality to reign in. Truth is seen as a threat.
To find truth and to walk in it, is God giving a faithful believer a protective bubble to walk in.

Its not complex. Men in this world will lie as a way of life and for getting ahead.

In contrast to evolution theory.. God created man and woman's souls instantly 'out from nothing.'
Genesis 1:27 -"Bara!" No evolution.

On the other hand, the human bodies were not created 'out from nothing. Instead, Adam's body was molded
and formed (jatsar) by means of using the elements of the earth. No monkey transformation going on.

If we got here by evolution the Bible could have easily revealed it. If we came from some form of chimpanzee?
It could have easily been told and understood by those alive at the time of writing.

.........

I really, really hate to say this but it's the honest truth as someone who has been on both sides of this: except in rare instances it is the Christians (YECs) who are 'lying' and guilty of misrepresentation and distortion and propaganda (although I do not believe it is done intentionally)

 

[TB2]

If there were real transitional fossils we would not be looking for them...
We would not be straining to make something into one like we see being done.
They would be plentiful and self evident.

There are transitional forms, but there is no need to actively look for them because we now how extensive evidence (including experimental evidence) that large scale physical changes result from minor genetic tweaks and tinkering, and even just by tweaking gene expression and developmental timing. A single change in a gene can change the location of body appendages or cause leg bones with attached musculature to develop in fish fins.

 

[TB2]

I believe it is wrong because I already explained why I think it is wrong. What the Bible says is a completely different topic.

What the Bible says is of greater relevance and was also included in my initial comment.

The KJV "firmament" is a transliteration of the Latin "firmamentum" from the Latin Vulgate Bible, meaning that which is 'firm.'

The Latin firmamentum is itself translated from the Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint (LXX) in use during Jesus's days (two-thirds of OT citations in the NT are from the Septuagint). Firmamentum is how the Latin Vulgate Bible translates the Greek word "stereoma," which is a solid support structure upon which something rests. Again, this was the Greek translation of the OT used in Jesus's day.

Stereoma

The Greek word stereoma is itself translated from the Hebrew word raqia, meaning "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out)."

Raqia

The Hebrew word raqia is related to metal-working/metallurgy. The verb form means to hammer or pound out metal into thin metal plates or sheets. To 'stretch' or 'expand' metal by hammering/pounding metal out into thin sheets.

The closest modern words we have for this are malleable and ductile.

The Hebrew OT describes the firmament in terms of a solid, hammered out metal raqia. The Jewish scribes who translated the OT into Greek understood this meaning too, and so used the Greek stereoma solid support structure to translate it. The Latin Vulgate Bible follows suit by translating stereoma as firmamentum, that which is firm. And from that comes the our English word firmament.

In addition to the KJV "firmament" (that which is firm); other modern translations that more accurately convey the original sense include the NIV and NASB, among others.

NASB
6 Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other. 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. 8 God called the dome “Sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day."

NIV
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

By contrast, modern translations that inaccurately translate, include the NLT:

NLT
6 And God said, “Let there be a space between the waters to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth." 7 And that is whar happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The literal translation of Genesis is that on Day 2, God created some type of solid support structure divider "in the midst of the waters" to separate the "waters above" (source of flood waters for Noah's Flood) from the "waters below," and on Day 4 embedded the sun, moon, stars "in" this solid support structure (putting the sun, moon, stars in what we know to be Earth's atmosphere, below the "waters above" that were poured out during Noah's Flood). On Day 5, the birds don't fly in the solid support structure, but in front or across the "face"/surface of it (same word for Spirit hovering over the face of the waters" in Gen 1.3).

Those who argue that the hammered out metal raqia, and solid support stereoma could simply be metaphorical run into the difficulty that metaphors must still make sense. Stereoma is indeed used as a metaphor for firmness and steadfastness. But it's difficult to conceive of how a solid support structure could be a metaphor for empty space, nothingness, which "holds" up nothing. (It should be noted the "waters above" are liquid water; there were different Hebrew words for clouds and mists).

This one test case example alone, seems to make the concordist view untenable, since the sky is clearly not a solid support divider. The only way I can conceive around this is to ignore the lexical meanings of raqia and stereoma. Thus, in order to maintain a high view of Scripture, including divine inspiration, infallibility, etc., Divine Accommodation seems to be the only tenable alternative that remains faithful both to a high view of Scripture, and what Scripture actually says.

 

[GeneZ]

I really, really hate to say this but it's the honest truth as someone who has been on both sides of this: except in rare instances it is the Christians (YECs) who are 'lying' and guilty of misrepresentation and distortion and propaganda (although I do not believe it is done intentionally)

I have learned to disdain YEC. They think by lying they will convince people to believe their misinterpretations.
Not only that. They attack anyone who has a grasp on accurate exegesis of the Hebrew in Genesis.
They think they must lie to save someone from Hell.

YEC's totally bollix up the intent of Old Earth Creationists when claiming that the OEC people are trying to compromise the Bible with evolution when nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, OEC, when the Gap factor is applied, totally refutes evolutionary theory as to the origin of life and man.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

What the Bible says is of greater relevance and was also included in my initial comment.

Why is the Bible of greater relevance compared to you not knowing if evolution is true or not? You don't have to repost and repaste your previous posts to repeat yourself. It was understood the first time. At least by me.

The KJV "firmament" is a transliteration of the Latin "firmamentum" from the Latin Vulgate Bible, meaning that which is 'firm.'

The Latin firmamentum is itself translated from the Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint (LXX) in use during Jesus's days (two-thirds of OT citations in the NT are from the Septuagint). Firmamentum is how the Latin Vulgate Bible translates the Greek word "stereoma," which is a solid support structure upon which something rests. Again, this was the Greek translation of the OT used in Jesus's day.

Stereoma

The Greek word stereoma is itself translated from the Hebrew word raqia, meaning "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out)."

Raqia

The Hebrew word raqia is related to metal-working/metallurgy. The verb form means to hammer or pound out metal into thin metal plates or sheets. To 'stretch' or 'expand' metal by hammering/pounding metal out into thin sheets.

The closest modern words we have for this are malleable and ductile.

The Hebrew OT describes the firmament in terms of a solid, hammered out metal raqia. The Jewish scribes who translated the OT into Greek understood this meaning too, and so used the Greek stereoma solid support structure to translate it. The Latin Vulgate Bible follows suit by translating stereoma as firmamentum, that which is firm. And from that comes the our English word firmament.

In addition to the KJV "firmament" (that which is firm); other modern translations that more accurately convey the original sense include the NIV and NASB, among others.

NASB
6 Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other. 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. 8 God called the dome “Sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day."

NIV
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

By contrast, modern translations that inaccurately translate, include the NLT:

NLT
6 And God said, “Let there be a space between the waters to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth." 7 And that is whar happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The literal translation of Genesis is that on Day 2, God created some type of solid support structure divider "in the midst of the waters" to separate the "waters above" (source of flood waters for Noah's Flood) from the "waters below," and on Day 4 embedded the sun, moon, stars "in" this solid support structure (putting the sun, moon, stars in what we know to be Earth's atmosphere, below the "waters above" that were poured out during Noah's Flood). On Day 5, the birds don't fly in the solid support structure, but in front or across the "face"/surface of it (same word for Spirit hovering over the face of the waters" in Gen 1.3).

Those who argue that the hammered out metal raqia, and solid support stereoma could simply be metaphorical run into the difficulty that metaphors must still make sense. Stereoma is indeed used as a metaphor for firmness and steadfastness. But it's difficult to conceive of how a solid support structure could be a metaphor for empty space, nothingness, which "holds" up nothing. (It should be noted the "waters above" are liquid water; there were different Hebrew words for clouds and mists).

This one test case example alone, seems to make the concordist view untenable, since the sky is clearly not a solid support divider. The only way I can conceive around this is to ignore the lexical meanings of raqia and stereoma. Thus, in order to maintain a high view of Scripture, including divine inspiration, infallibility, etc., Divine Accommodation seems to be the only tenable alternative that remains faithful both to a high view of Scripture, and what Scripture actually says.

 

[GeneZ]

There are transitional forms, but there is no need to actively look for them because we now how extensive evidence (including experimental evidence) that large scale physical changes result from minor genetic tweaks and tinkering, and even just by tweaking gene expression and developmental timing. A single change in a gene can change the location of body appendages or cause leg bones with attached musculature to develop in fish fins.

Laziness for the lack of a true answer. Sure there are minor tweaks. God created us to adapt when need be. It reveals his omniscience to do so.

 

[TB2]

I have learned to disdain YEC. They think by lying they will convince people to believe their misinterpretations.
Not only that. They attack anyone who has a grasp on accurate exegesis of the Hebrew in Genesis.
They think they must lie to save someone from Hell.

YEC's totally bollix up the intent of Old Earth Creationists when claiming that the OEC people are trying to compromise the Bible with evolution when nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, OEC, when the Gap factor is applied, totally refutes evolutionary theory as to the origin of life and man.

Sad but true. There are legit YEC scientists I know who did legit research work, but the YEC activists drown out their voice

 

[TB2]

Laziness for the lack of a true answer. Sure there are minor tweaks. God created us to adapt when need be. It reveals his omniscience to do so.

Now that's hardly fair. I think we know each other well enough to know that we can both expound and elaborate. It is impossible to do justice to the last three decades of breakthroughs in genomics that have revolutionized our understanding on this. The evidence for evolution and common ancestry has never been stronger (and conversely, the origin of life has never been more difficult to explain naturalistically!). But here's one article for you with 400 citations to research:

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in the Light of Genomics: Read–Write Genome Evolution as an Active Biological Process​

Genomes contain abundant and functional repetitive components in addition to the unique coding sequences envisaged in the early days of molecular biology. Combinatorial coding, plus the biochemical abilities cells possess to rearrange DNA molecules, constitute a powerful toolbox for adaptive genome rewriting. That is, cells possess “Read–Write Genomes” they alter by numerous biochemical processes capable of rapidly restructuring cellular DNA molecules. Rather than viewing genome evolution as a series of accidental modifications, we can now study it as a complex biological process of active self-modification.

 

[TB2]

Why is the Bible of greater relevance compared to you not knowing if evolution is true or not?

Huh? We do know evolution is true beyond a reasonable doubt

 

[GeneZ]

What the Bible says is of greater relevance and was also included in my initial comment.

The KJV "firmament" is a transliteration of the Latin "firmamentum" from the Latin Vulgate Bible, meaning that which is 'firm.'

The Latin firmamentum is itself translated from the Greek translation of the OT called the Septuagint (LXX) in use during Jesus's days (two-thirds of OT citations in the NT are from the Septuagint). Firmamentum is how the Latin Vulgate Bible translates the Greek word "stereoma," which is a solid support structure upon which something rests. Again, this was the Greek translation of the OT used in Jesus's day.

Stereoma

The Greek word stereoma is itself translated from the Hebrew word raqia, meaning "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out)."

Raqia

The Hebrew word raqia is related to metal-working/metallurgy. The verb form means to hammer or pound out metal into thin metal plates or sheets. To 'stretch' or 'expand' metal by hammering/pounding metal out into thin sheets.

The closest modern words we have for this are malleable and ductile.

The Hebrew OT describes the firmament in terms of a solid, hammered out metal raqia. The Jewish scribes who translated the OT into Greek understood this meaning too, and so used the Greek stereoma solid support structure to translate it. The Latin Vulgate Bible follows suit by translating stereoma as firmamentum, that which is firm. And from that comes the our English word firmament.

In addition to the KJV "firmament" (that which is firm); other modern translations that more accurately convey the original sense include the NIV and NASB, among others.

NASB
6 Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other. 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. 8 God called the dome “Sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day."

NIV
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

By contrast, modern translations that inaccurately translate, include the NLT:

NLT
6 And God said, “Let there be a space between the waters to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth." 7 And that is whar happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

The literal translation of Genesis is that on Day 2, God created some type of solid support structure divider "in the midst of the waters" to separate the "waters above" (source of flood waters for Noah's Flood) from the "waters below," and on Day 4 embedded the sun, moon, stars "in" this solid support structure (putting the sun, moon, stars in what we know to be Earth's atmosphere, below the "waters above" that were poured out during Noah's Flood). On Day 5, the birds don't fly in the solid support structure, but in front or across the "face"/surface of it (same word for Spirit hovering over the face of the waters" in Gen 1.3).

Those who argue that the hammered out metal raqia, and solid support stereoma could simply be metaphorical run into the difficulty that metaphors must still make sense. Stereoma is indeed used as a metaphor for firmness and steadfastness. But it's difficult to conceive of how a solid support structure could be a metaphor for empty space, nothingness, which "holds" up nothing. (It should be noted the "waters above" are liquid water; there were different Hebrew words for clouds and mists).

This one test case example alone, seems to make the concordist view untenable, since the sky is clearly not a solid support divider. The only way I can conceive around this is to ignore the lexical meanings of raqia and stereoma. Thus, in order to maintain a high view of Scripture, including divine inspiration, infallibility, etc., Divine Accommodation seems to be the only tenable alternative that remains faithful both to a high view of Scripture, and what Scripture actually says.

My pastor was a dedicated Greek and Hebrew scholar.

When he taught Genesis he presented many factors to be found in the Hebrew that gets put away in the cupboard today. It was so well done, that one of his students based his thesis at MIT on the state of the prehistoric earth based on that teaching series.
(that same teaching on Genesis was recorded and is still available today)

 

[Inertia]

You have to think these things through.

What was Adam told would happen to him of the day he ate of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil?

It seems you do not know.

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die." ( Genesis 2:17 )

The passage implies that Adam understood the concept of death. Most likely from observation (Genesis 2:15 ). A venus flytrap is only one example.

______
.

 

[GeneZ]

Now that's hardly fair. I think we know each other well enough to know that we can both expound and elaborate. It is impossible to do justice to the last three decades of breakthroughs in genomics that have revolutionized our understanding on this. The evidence for evolution and common ancestry has never been stronger (and conversely, the origin of life has never been more difficult to explain naturalistically!). But here's one article for you with 400 citations to research:

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in the Light of Genomics: Read–Write Genome Evolution as an Active Biological Process​

If they need to find something to look like it, they will find something.

Life was so plentiful for each period that is odd to not find plentiful transitional modes.