Creationism, Darwinism and Natural History

[Papias]

mark wrote:

I'm not the ....., attacking those who stand on the clear testimony of Scripture. That would be you.

I'm sorry you are so senstive when your interpretation is challenged. It's sad that I have to remind you yet again that we both see the scripture itself as authoritative.

It's also sad that you spend so many electron hurling insults at me. It can't be helping you grow in Christ.

What? With nearly all humans being between 1000 and 1600 cc, 600, even if not fully adult, is a far cry from a normal human.

They are a far cry from definitive cranial capacities and anatomical features. .

Oh, so now you are suddenly an anatomist? The real anatomists agree these clearly aren't modern humans, but are transitional apes. Do you still disagree with the experts and class them as humans, or not?

​

It doesn't have to be exact, mark. At around 600-700, it could be off by a lot - even 10%, and still not be close to being human.

But 400cc to 500cc are so close that they could never be considered Chimpanzee ancestors. They are very much like the Asian hominids, fragmentary and speculation abounds.

Oh, so have we found some of mark's long lost chimpanzee ancestors? mark, we are still waiting for you to identify which species you think are de-evolving chimp ancestors......

​

Because not being an expert, you don't know beans about hominid skulls. The experts are clear that these are not modern human skulls. Do you deny that?

Deny what?

It says it right there, mark. Do you deny that the experts are clear that these are not modern human skulls?

There are no chimpanzee ancestors to compare our supposed ancestors to, do you deny that? There wouldn't be any evidence that they every existed if they were not alive today, do you deny that?

I completely agree that there are no chimpanzee ancestors from 6 mya to today, and that we wouldn't know of chimp's existence without their existence today. I don't see why that's relevant, there are lots of species like that.

Let's call this the cerebral rubicon

Right after you denied you were trying to posit some kind of gap? Then you propose calling it the cerebral rubicon? How about we call 3.392175 feet tall the "vertical rubicon"? Then when my son crosses it, I'll say he suddenly made a giant leap, crossing the vertical rubicon, and have a party!

Then we can play the comparative anatomy game.

Maybe actually go to a university and learn about comparative anatomy, instead of playing games?

Your entitled to your opinion but I never said they were clueless about the fossils.

Sure you did. You said that they had misclassified human fossils as non-human, even though they are experts and you are not. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

I said they were clueless about the molecular basis.

First, we were talking about fossils, not molecular biology. Secondly, so mark, are you an expert on molecular biology? What is your degree there?

Here are dozens more, in fact:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/PartII.pdf
[/indent]

​

That's not a fact, it's a poor excuse for a link, without an explanation.

​

The explanation was right there, mark - that here are dozens more. Did you even bother to read the list of dozens of fossils the bridge your supposed "cerebral rubicon", your "giant leap"? Or did you dismiss the very evidence you need out of denial?

Oh, so now you abandon your point in post #101 where you called it a "giant leap" (and earlier threads as well)?

I haven't changed my arguments in years, the giant leap is the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes, starting about 2 mya. That has always been the argument, it does not change because the facts do not change.

Oh, OK, so you don't abandon it? Then just what did you mean by
"What's all this nonsense about a 'gap'?"? Did you mean that a "giant leap" isn't over a gap? Maybe it was a "giant leap" over a little crack?

Simply false. You get similar results if organized by age or by size. Funny that, eh?
​

I do organize by age and size,
​

So then you see the easy and clear trend shown here, when we organize by age? Which of these are you saying are chimp ancestors?

it's really all you can squeeze into these incessant ad hominem attacks.

What did I write that you think was an ad hominem attack?

At one time a Creationists couldn't post to a discussion forum without being gang tackled by dozens of evolutionists. You arrived late. .... At one time I was concerned about Creationists who were earnestly trying to understand the issues, but they are all but gone.

Probably because it's old news now. Evolution is solidly established, not just among scientists, but also among Christian colleges, seminaries, and so on. It's just like how I find it harder and harder to debate anybody about how the sun goes around the earth or that disease are the result of demons. As you said yourself, the culture wars are over.

Are you intentionally ignoring the previous data I posted? We have plenty of ancestors of chimps, as well as modern chimps, so it is easy to see the cranial capacity of our chimp-like ancestors from 10 million years ago.

Say again....
You mean to tell me you have evidence of chimpanzee ancestors? Do tell, I would enjoy hearing about this evidence.

OK, I bumped it for you.

So now I'm going to learn how science has discovered how mutations in brain related genes are beneficial?

Yes mark, some are. You will if you study it.
​

First of all he never once mentions mutations, he just lies about the genomic divergence.

Oh, so now when you don't like what the experts say, you accuse them of lying about what they understand and you don't. Nice.

​

sequences were compared and wants to tell us that the sequences are 98.9% the same?

It's simply not true and this has been a well established fact for quite some time:

mark, as has been explained to you many times, the % is different when you use different ways of counting. If you count a SNP as different, or the whole gene it is in as different, or the subregion, each will give you a different % difference, even though nothing has changed but your counting method.

everything you posted as far as evidence is consistent with normal evolution, where the majority of mutations that have an effect are harmful, with a few beneficial ones being winnowed out by natural selection to give an overall beneficial effect. Would it help for me to explain how natural selection keeps the good without being hampered by the harmful mutations again?


In Christ Jesus-

Papias

P.S. Paul, you are citing anything based on Lev Berg's Nomogenesis? seriously? That's based on the poor state of evidence from nearly a century ago, before anyone had even heard of DNA, for instance. It's OK as a historical curiosity, but basing a modern argument on it is kinda pointless.​

 

[pshun2404]

Nothing but varieties of apes up to Habalis (which is also an ape) and we still have plenty of apes around. Heidelberg Man is a hodge poge myth (sorry for any that buy into the story). None of the early ones are our relatives (there are no similarities worth mentioning other than they are also primates...forget the artistic depictions they are all contrived to support the theory).

I know, I know, I do not know what I am talking about, and we should all believe the brainwashing we received in public school...I use to believe it because that is what I was taught...then I realized why I was being taught it was to convince me of a theory that had no actual proof, and I also did believe it for decades...then I realized it was all just poor interpretation of evidence construed to fit the preconceived conclusions. Apes and humans are two distinct lines of creature and we do not share a common ancestor...humans could have come first even though we do not have fossil remains...we do not have fossil remains of many creatures that existed...some seem to disappear then re-appear...many have remained the exact same with no change since the Cambrian...

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

Papias

P.S. Paul, you are citing anything based on Lev Berg's Nomogenesis? seriously? That's based on the poor state of evidence from nearly a century ago, before anyone had even heard of DNA, for instance. It's OK as a historical curiosity, but basing a modern argument on it is kinda pointless.

Seriously? Of all that was said there you focused on this mans one comment? Are you sure you were not looking for at least something you could hang your hat on? Go back and read the rest...take Berg out, and the actual facts still beg the question of the possibility of convergent evolution which only speaks to the fact that unrelated creatures can have the same traits and that this does not necessitate relationship as in one being the progenitor of the other OR of their both sharing a common ancestor. There is no evidence to prove men evolved from apes or that we shared a common ancestor. It is a theory...and after 150 years and millions of fossils it still has not been demonstrated to be true (in all fairness I realize that does not mean it is not true just that we have no actual evidence that it is true).

Paul

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm sorry you are so senstive when your interpretation is challenged. It's sad that I have to remind you yet again that we both see the scripture itself as authoritative.

It's sad that you dismiss the clear testimony of Scripture based on a philosophy that is just one long argument against it.

It's also sad that you spend so many electron hurling insults at me. It can't be helping you grow in Christ.

They are well deserved criticisms mostly for the lack of substantive arguments. If your concerned that these debates are delirious to my spiritual well being why don't you try not making them so divisive and argumentative.

Oh, so now you are suddenly an anatomist? The real anatomists agree these clearly aren't modern humans, but are transitional apes. Do you still disagree with the experts and class them as humans, or not?

Actually I'm a realist and fragmentary fossil evidence is sketchy at best. The absence of chimpanzee ancestors and the lack of candor regarding the evidence tells me more then all the old bones and dirt ever could.

Oh, so have we found some of mark's long lost chimpanzee ancestors? mark, we are still waiting for you to identify which species you think are de-evolving chimp ancestors......

I said that the Taung Child was a chimpanzee ancestor, nothing more. You twist my words to suite your whims just like you do everything else. Adam and Eve were our ancestor according to Christ, Paul, Moses and the clear testimony of Scripture whenever it speaks to our lineage. Your the one who thinks Adam married an ape, which by the way, is in counter distinction to human but you already knew that. You might not believe in creation but it can't be based on the line of rhetoric you spew in these posts.

It says it right there, mark. Do you deny that the experts are clear that these are not modern human skulls?

If they are anything like Robert Supdsky the facts are impossible to reconcile to the actual evidence. That's the guy who you said was an 'expert' in genomics and claimed we are 99% the same as Chimpanzees in our DNA. You remember him don't you? Funny how short your memory is on the facts you can't get straight but you want to ridicule me when I try to correct your nearly constant errors.

I completely agree that there are no chimpanzee ancestors from 6 mya to today, and that we wouldn't know of chimp's existence without their existence today. I don't see why that's relevant, there are lots of species like that.

Because every time a gracial skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically labels Homo XXX, that' why.

Right after you denied you were trying to posit some kind of gap? Then you propose calling it the cerebral rubicon? How about we call 3.392175 feet tall the "vertical rubicon"? Then when my son crosses it, I'll say he suddenly made a giant leap, crossing the vertical rubicon, and have a party!

I don't have a clue what you mean about a 'gap' but all good Darwinian believe that nature does not make leaps. It's called 'Natura non facit saltus', if you are going to defend it you should learn it.

Maybe actually go to a university and learn about comparative anatomy, instead of playing games?

I've been to college thanks, the Life Sciences are about living systems not mythical stone age apemen.

Sure you did. You said that they had misclassified human fossils as non-human, even though they are experts and you are not. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

I didn't classify them as anything, whatever they were there is far to much variance in the estimates of the cranial vault to determine much.

First, we were talking about fossils, not molecular biology. Secondly, so mark, are you an expert on molecular biology? What is your degree there?

That's called an argument from credulity and it's as fallacious at the ad hominems you bounce around like tennis shoes in a tumble dryer.

Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. (Francis Bacon, Novum Organum)​

A better description of Darwinism cannot be found. Your performances in the Darwinian theater of the mind are little more then comic relief at intermission.

The explanation was right there, mark - that here are dozens more. Did you even bother to read the list of dozens of fossils the bridge your supposed "cerebral rubicon", your "giant leap"? Or did you dismiss the very evidence you need out of denial?

I've read most of the papers that Louis and Richard Leaky published, spent a great deal of time tracking them down. I spend most of my time focused on the molecular basis for adaptations but I know you can't be bothered with the cause, only the presumed effects of some nebulous natural law unknown to science. There is neither the time nor the means for the human brain to have evolved from apes.

For us to have evolved from apes it would have required an accelerated evolution of brain related genes. The evolution of the human brain would have had to start it's accelerated evolution on a molecular basis some 2 million years ago and within Homo Erectus (considered human by most creationists) would have had a brain size twice that of the Austropihicene and early Hominids:

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.

(Source: Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)​

Homo habilis that would have lived. 2.5–1.5 mya with a cranial capacity of ~600 cc. The next link would have been Homo erectus with a cranial capacity of ~1000cc. KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) would have lived 1.5 mya and the skeleton structure shows no real difference between anatomically modern humans. The skull while smaller then the average cranial capacity of humans but close to twice that of his ancestors of 2 mya.

That means for our ancestors to have evolved it would have required a dramatic adaptive evolution of the size just under 2 mya sandwiched between two long periods of relative stasis. One such gene would have been the HARf regulatory gene involved in the early development of the human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks. With only two substitutions allowed since the common ancestor of the of 310 mya the divergence between humans and chimpanzees indicates 18 substitutions as early as 2 mya. (Nature, vol. 443, no. 7108, pp. 167-172 September 14, 2006)The ASPM gene while 99.3% the same for the human–chimpanzee comparison is marked by ten insertions/deletions equal to or longer than 50 bp, all of them located within introns. Primary microcephaly (MCPH) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by global reduction in cerebral cortical volume.(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003) In addition, a total of 2014 genes or ~10% of brain related genes analyzed differed in expression between humans and chimpanzees brains.(Genome Res. 14:1462-1473, 2004 ).

Oh, OK, so you don't abandon it? Then just what did you mean by
What's all this nonsense about a 'gap'?? Did you mean that a "giant leap" isn't over a gap? Maybe it was a "giant leap" over a little crack?

It's an a priori assumption, a presumed effect without a cause. I don't know what you think this 'gap' nonsense is but my interest is adaptive evolution not these fallacious clutch phrases.

So then you see the easy and clear trend shown here, when we organize by age? Which of these are you saying are chimp ancestors?

I can post images to:

What makes us human? (Nature 437, 69-87 ) What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?(Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070) What is the genetic and evolutionary background of phenotypic traits that set humans apart from our closest evolutionary relatives, the chimpanzees?(Genome Research 14:1462-1473)

One of the problems with the evolutionary expansion of the human brain from that of an ape is the size, weight and complexity. The human brian would have had to triple in size, starting 2 1/2 million years ago and ending 200 to 400 thousand years ago. The brain weight would have had to grow by 250% while the body only grows by 20%. The average brain weight would have to go from 400-450g, 2 1/2 MY ago to 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY.

"It is generally believed that the brain expansion set the stage for the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions and that it was caused by adaptive selection (DECAN 1992 ), yet the genetic basis of the expansion remains elusive."

Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size, Genetics, Vol. 165, 2063-2070, December 2003

What did I write that you think was an ad hominem attack?

When do you write anything else?

Probably because it's old news now. Evolution is solidly established, not just among scientists, but also among Christian colleges, seminaries, and so on. It's just like how I find it harder and harder to debate anybody about how the sun goes around the earth or that disease are the result of demons. As you said yourself, the culture wars are over.

The seminaries have been over run with Liberal Theology for at least a hundred years. The culture wars are over, Darwinism and Creationism were the winners but those who chose to scavenge in the no man's land of neither here nor there TE were the big losers as far as I can tell. We are riding the crest of waves of revivalism in the U.S.. As the church starts to emerge from it's emotional based ministry there will be a greater intellectual and academic emphasis. The only reason Darwinism was allowed to run wild for so long is because the church just ignored it. That is changing.

Oh, so now when you don't like what the experts say, you accuse them of lying about what they understand and you don't. Nice.

The only expert you have spammed lately is Richard Supdsky and he was obviously wrong.

mark, as has been explained to you many times, the % is different when you use different ways of counting. If you count a SNP as different, or the whole gene it is in as different, or the subregion, each will give you a different % difference, even though nothing has changed but your counting method.

The only thing that changed is whether or not you include the indels.

everything you posted as far as evidence is consistent with normal evolution, where the majority of mutations that have an effect are harmful, with a few beneficial ones being winnowed out by natural selection to give an overall beneficial effect. Would it help for me to explain how natural selection keeps the good without being hampered by the harmful mutations again?

No Papias it's not.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

Seems like I've been using it since I started coming on the internet in the 90s.

I made no claim that he was an expert master of Hebrew but then again, none was needed.

I mentioned Merril Unger and William White because the are credited as authors in my copy, they actually did the editing. There's a list of a dozen or so contributors inside the cover and while I don't see the relevance, the introduction in my copy was done by William White. You guys do this, undermining the credibility of any source you just don't like. Had you bothered to offer a relevant alternative exposition or provided a more substantive source it would be different. Disparaging Vine because he wasn't some kind of exegetical Hebrew expert is pointless. You can easily forget why I made my original statement that Vine's is above reproach but I won't. It's because the definition in Vine's is adequate for the exposition and theological insight needed in one of these discussion. There is no need to go into the syntax a far more technical exegetical work would because we are not translating from the original, that has already been done.

I went back and read the introduction again, the history of the language is actually very interesting. It describes the transition of the Aramaic from the original Semitic, through the adoption of the Phonetician style fonts. Apparently during the Medieval period vowels were added to make the language more readable and there was a lot about the construction and grammar of the Hebrew. The point of this criticism is not to better understand the Hebrew language of the original, the point your going to make is to dismiss the definition of Vine's as some private interpretation.

The problem is, you are using Vine's definition as an argument from authority. It is not just that it is adequate for exposition, but that you insist we have to base our exposition on Vine's claim of bara as ex nihilo. Unfortunately, your argument from authority is based on someone who simply isn't authoritative.

...Had you bothered to offer a relevant alternative exposition or provided a more substantive source it would be different...

We have, you just haven't shown any interest. All you want to do is base the discussion on Vines and attack us for pointing out there are much better Hebrew lexicons out there.

Nonsense. We are not dealing with the exegetical construction or semantics of the text, we are simply talking about what the word means.

Which Vine cannot give you because he isn't a Hebrew expert. Did you read the introduction I gave you from F. F. Bruce? He calls it a word study.

If you like the entry from HALOT then quote it and make your point. I can't read the rest of the entry from your link because all it leads to is the CF main menu. Bara is clearly an nihilo creation and so far you have no argument to the contrary. Disparaging the work of Christian scholars is really nothing more then another ad hominem. As is the case with virtually all Theistic Evolutionists arguments it's simply an antithetical view of creation offering no genuine insight into the meaning of the original.

Sorry about that, the link got garbled. Here is a link for HALOT.
Theologyweb

You missing the point here, ex nihilo is an expression meaning a new creation. Often times dictionary writers and expositors borrow the phrase from the Latin to express the meaning in readily available terms communicating the general meaning. Now, as to whether or not it's an absolute 'out of nothing' we really don't know. The Genesis 1:1 use of 'bara' is in the perfect sense which would seem to indicate that God did not produce it from preexisting material and the implication here is that before this creation there was absolutely nothing. It doesn't mean it came materially from God, but that God created it and that was the only point of origin for the universe.

If you don't know whether bara means out of nothing or not, I suggest you stop using the term 'ex nihilo', the Latin for 'out of nothing'. You also need to stop referring to the perfect with Hebrew verbs since perfect means something completely different from the way you are trying to use it.

While Genesis is about the beginning and everything it describes God creating is a new creation, that doesn't mean bara, create, means form something new. The newness of the creation comes from the context not the verb. Elsewhere in the bible we see each person being described as a creation of God, you could of course argue that each one of us is unique, but then you have emptied the idea of creating something new of any useful meaning in this discussion. It is not just each person who is created by God. Isaiah 41:19 I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle, and the olive... 20 that they may see and know, may consider and understand together, that the hand of the LORD has done this, the Holy One of Israel has created it. Each olive tree and myrtle bush is God's creation too.

There is nothing more that needs to be understood about the use of 'bara' in the opening verse. The universe did not exist and then it did. I like the bumper sticker that says I believe in the Big Bang, God spoke and BANG!, there it was. That's the meaning and it's the only time in this account that it is in the perfect sense probably because just as Adam was created 'from dust' the other living creatures were created from the earth as well.

You get that idea from the context of Genesis 1:1, but that means bara doesn't need to contain that meaning to tell us God made the universe that way. The meaning we see throughout the rest the bible works perfectly well here without trying to make up a special meaning that only applies in this one occurrence of the verb.

Yes it is ex nihilo, just not a perfect ex nihilo. Adam was created by 'miraculous interpolation' with no lineage of any kind except for an act of God in creation. This is the clear meaning intended by Moses and confirmed in no uncertain terms in the New Testament. It's not that hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

"a perfect ex nihilo"?

The bible frequently uses the metaphor of God being a potter and people being made dust, in fact the verb to form, yatsar, in Genesis 2:9 is the same word for potter. The fact you think Moses was a literalist like you does not mean this is the clear meaning he intended.

I understand the meaning just fine and BTW, there is no such thing as a 'tense' in Hebrew. Not trying to be picky here, it just means that the subject is embedded into the verb, it's really just how it's constructed. I think the reason for the use is that God is inextricably linked to the act of creation and the writer wanted to emphasis this in the strongest possible terms.

Yes indeed, the Hebrew perfect is not a verb 'tense' Hebrew uses other ways (like context or the waw consecutive construction) to say that an action occurred in the past or future, though you will find older grammars like Gesenius referring to the Hebrew perfect as a 'tense form'. But the issue here isn't whether Hebrew verbs tells us when an action takes place, but the meaning of the perfect in Hebrew verb.

And no Mark, you do not understand what the perfect means. Here is a basic explanation:

Meaning of perfect verbs p116
Since the Hebrew perfect verb connotes completed action rather than temporal action (temporal action being past, present, or future), a variety of English tenses may be used in translating a Hebrew perfect verb. The perfect may describe action completed in the past, in the present, or even in the future. The context of a Hebrew verb is the guide for understanding which English tense best conveys the meaning. While Hebrew perfect verbs may convey a variety of temporal meanings, it is often the case that they communicate action that has been completed in the past.
​

In the pagan mythologies of the time around the Mediterranean the gods did not create the universe. The god's were themselves created by the elementals, (earth, air, fire, water). The universe had a starting point, life had a starting point, mankind had a starting point, only God is the Unmoved Mover, the primary cause of all creation. That's the meaning and it requires no great knowledge and insight to realize that.

That is certainly what the bible teaches, that does not mean all this theology is built into the Hebrew word bara.

God did create us, he created us in the bara sense 'in Adam', we originally sinned in the same way. The birth of Isaac was a miracle just as the incarnation was, a miracle not unlike the absolute creation of Genesis 1, just not in the perfect sense since there we actual material precursors.

The bible never talks of us being created in Adam and as I pointed out in my last post the miracle with Isaac was that Sarah bore a son in her old age, not that God created another Adam ex nihilo in her womb with the child bearing no relation to Abraham and Sarah other than Sarah be a surrogate mother the embryo God created. Sarah understood better than you do which is why she laughed at the prospect of having sex again in her old age. God used the normal human act of sexual reproduction in these two old folks and the child she bore she bore to Abraham. It wasn't ex nihilo it was ex materia, it was ex conceptio ovum et sperma, like every other human being God created and will create. Isaiah uses the perfect to say God created the blacksmith and Malachi uses the perfect to say God created all of us. Ezekiel uses the perfect to describe the place God created the Ammonites, it is not talking about being created in Adam but is talking about the land of they came from Ezek 21:30 In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.

The bible uses bara, create, to refer to the creation of people yet to be born. Psalm 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.

As indeed the New Testament warns us not to forget the Creator, for this reason...

Edited to fit 15000 characters​

...As William White expresses it:

The Hebrew Bible contains the continuous history of civilization from Creation to Roman times. It is the only record of God's dealings with humanity through His prophets, priests and kings. In addition, it is the only ancient religious document that has survived completely intact. (William White, Introduction to Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

I am sure you can find plenty of people who will interpret the Genesis creation accounts like you do, as salvation history. But that doesn't tell us anything about the meaning of bara, for that we need to look at the best Hebrew Lexicons available and see how the word is used throughout the Old Testament. We can't just make up a mean to fit our theology and our interpretation of Genesis, that is doing things completely the wrong way around.

The truth is I'm running out of time for these discussions. At one time this kind of debate and discussion was a pass time, usually when I was working a lot. When you work like 60 70 hours a week you don't have a lot of time and energy for getting out much. That's how I got into this and I've enjoyed some downtime lately so I have simply been indulging myself in an old pass time.

Times running out buddy, I simply am not going to have a lot of time in the near future for chasing these arguments in circles. Your discussion in the last post was actually pretty thoughtful and in the last several posts you obviously put some work into it. I assume from you discussion of the introduction by Bruce that you own a Vine's and use it, I think that's great. I must warn you though, it's not a healthy attitude to dismiss what is difficult to believe in the Bible as someone else's opinion. There are a ton of things I struggled with including the Trinity as a matter of act but I never dismissed this doctrine, I just didn't understand it.

Thanks for spending the time here Mark. It is good talking to you. Iron sharpens iron as the bible says. Even though we disagree, discussing these topics and the meaning of scripture leads me to study them much more deeply.

I have an old copy of his NT dictionary, but I haven't looked at it in years I had to google to find the intro to his OT dictionary. I do value what he taught me as a young Christian, but as has been pointed out, Vine's is really only entry level language study. I do value scholarship, even when I disagree with what is being said and I try to distinguish between what they have established to one level or an other and and the traditions, personal views and speculations they bring into their discussion of the topic. Your problem with Vine, was not just that you were quoting someone who wasn't qualified in Hebrew, but that you were trying to establish Vine as the authority who could settle the meaning of the Hebrew. Even with the best scholarship discussion needs to be based on the evidence the experts use to support their understanding of the words.

Edited to fit 15000 characters

I think these are issues the church has to deal with today, as as you say it is a key to apologetics, one of the biggest stumbling blocks is the inspiration and trustworthiness of scripture when traditional interpretations of Genesis are contradicted by what we have learned through science. The church needs to find the answers in spite of the topic getting heated at times. I think they key is what Paul said in Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. We need grace in our conversation especially when there is plenty of salt.

 

[mark kennedy]

The problem is, you are using Vine's definition as an argument from authority...

It's not an argument, it's an exposition based on the clear meaning of the word in Scripture. The argument is that it's a denial of the power of God demonstrated at creation and throughout redemptive history.

We have, you just haven't shown any interest. All you want to do is base the discussion on Vines and attack us for pointing out there are much better Hebrew lexicons out there.

Then let's hear your expert exposition and exegesis of 'bara'.

...Here is a link for HALOT...

Let's compare shall we, I'll be using an abbreviated version of both the Hallot and Vines:

Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular of ‏בָּרָא (bārā&#8217, which means he created. ‏ברי‎ to create; Arb. bara’a to create (God), br’ to build, Soq. to give birth,. mbr’ building; → III: in the OT I ‏ברא‎ is a specifically theological term, the subject of which is invariably God. God creates:

• the heaven and the earth Gn 11,
• the ends of the earth Is 4028, the heaven Is 425 4518,
• a new heaven and a new earth Is 6517, the north and the south Ps 8913,
• the stars Is 4026
• the wind Am 413,
• clouds Is 45 (cj. ‏וּבָא‎ Sept.),
• the darkness Is 457,
• evil Is 457 with 3rd. sing. sffx.,
• for the salvation that is to come Is 458,
• a new thing Jr 3122,
• man, male and female Gn 127 51f 67 Dt 432 Is 4512,
• us Mal 210 Ps 8948 Sir 1514,
• your, his creator Qoh 121 (v.s.),
• Jacob Is 431,
• Israel 4315, Jerusalem as ‏גִּילָה‎ and his people as ‏מָשׂוֹשׂ‎ 6518,
• the individual Jew for his (God’s) glory 437,
• the smith 5416,
• an individual person Qoh 121,
• the sea monsters Gn 121, cj.
• day and night (rd. ‏בָּרָאתִי יוֹם&#8206 Jr 3325,
• the fruit of the lips Is 5719, a clean heart Ps 5112,
• the transformation of nature Is 4120,
• all his work Gn 23, cj. ‏תְּהִלּוֹת‎ Ex 1511,
• with cognate object Nu 1630; abs. Is 6518; ‏בוראו‎ his creator Sir 316; ‏בָּרָא‎ || ‏יָצַר‎ Is 431.7.

(The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm)

bä·rä' (H1254 - bara' בָּרָ&#1488, "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, sicne it has only God as it's subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bä·rä'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale:

• In the beginning God cread the heaven and the earth (Gen.1:1)
• Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (Gen. 2:3)
• Lift up your eyes on high, And see who has created these things, Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, By the greatness of His might And the strength of His power; Not one is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)
• Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)

(Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Vine, Unger, White)

The meanings are identical, the Lexicon is just more complete.

If you don't know whether bara means out of nothing or not, I suggest you stop using the term 'ex nihilo'...

I know what it means, I think you know what it mean, the problem is believing what it says. If you have a problem with either my exposition or Vine's then where is your exposition of the text in question?

While Genesis is about the beginning and everything it describes God creating is a new creation, that doesn't mean bara, create, means form something new...

On the contrary, it is the creation of something new that is at the heart of our discussion. This kind of absurd rationalization is what's wrong with your whole approach to both science and theology. You call black white and up down, you change the explicit meaning of words and twist them around to mean the opposite of the intended meaning:

in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16)​

You get that idea from the context of Genesis 1:1, but that means bara doesn't need to contain that meaning to tell us God made the universe...

It's unique in the opening verse of Genesis 1:1 in that creation is spoken of in absolute terms. It is the only time that 'bara' is used in the perfect sense. That's why the term may only be applied to God as the subject, only God can create in the sense of 'bara'. While the other uses of the term in Genesis and elsewhere indicate an 'imperfect' or other sense of the word the clear meaning is unmistakable. God created the universe, life and mankind in the sense of 'bara', no natural process is implied or should be inferred. The message of Genesis is not hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)​

I don't do this for sport Assyrian, I debate you and the other Theistic Evolutionists on here because Darwinism is poison. Creationism is a warning label on the transcendent nature of Darwinian logic. What they reject is not just an historical event by which God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in their vast array, they do but that's not all. They reject God's work in redemptive history continuing to this day until the redemption of the purchase price. Walking in lock step order with this profoundly worldly philosophy is a poison pill for theistic reasoning.

It's not my intention to discourage your faith in Christ, I'm here to remind you of it. That is the only known cure for the blind ignorance we all share when we first became acquainted with the divine nature and eternal attributes of God, made clear, since the creation of the world:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (Romans 1:16-19)​

"a perfect ex nihilo"?

Without precursors.

Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing"—chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields. (Ex nihilo)​

The phrase 'ex nihilo' can also be used to describe the argument you are making for 'bara'. Specifically you said that it's not a 'new creation', meaningless to our discussion. There is no basis for the statement, it's, 'an answer to a question provided with no working, thus appearing to have developed "out of nothing". (see Wikipedia Ex nihilo)

The bible frequently uses the metaphor of God being a potter and people being made dust, in fact the verb to form, yatsar, in Genesis 2:9 is the same word for potter. The fact you think Moses was a literalist like you does not mean this is the clear meaning he intended.

Moses was writing an historical narrative, the literal interpretation is always preferred. There is no indication that Moses was writing to convey a metaphorical meaning, the absence qualifiers for that kind of a literary style are no where to be found in the Genesis account of creation.

Yes indeed, the Hebrew perfect is not a verb 'tense' Hebrew uses other ways...

It's not used in the perfect tense, Hebrew grammar doesn't really work that way. It is used in the perfect 'sense' in Genesis 1:1 because the verse is in absolute terms. When it's used of the creation of life or man the 'sense' of the term is not as strong, that is, it can be used in an 'imperfect' since if for instance, man is created from dust. The creation of the universe was a perfectly new creation, before this act of God there was nothing. That same sense is used of the creation of man just not perfectly since man was created from dust while the universe had no precursors.

And no Mark, you do not understand what the perfect means. Here is a basic explanation:

Since the Hebrew perfect verb connotes completed action rather than temporal action (temporal action being past, present, or future), a variety of English tenses may be used in translating a Hebrew perfect verb. The perfect may describe action completed in the past, in the present, or even in the future. The context of a Hebrew verb is the guide for understanding which English tense best conveys the meaning. While Hebrew perfect verbs may convey a variety of temporal meanings, it is often the case that they communicate action that has been completed in the past.
​

Completed action rather then a temporal action. This is the 'perfect' sense in which Creation happened in Genesis 1:1. At the end of creation it was finished in all it's vast array. I don't know what you think I misunderstood about the meaning but it sounds like yet another fallacious stab in the dark.

That is certainly what the bible teaches, that does not mean all this theology is built into the Hebrew word bara.

Bara is of profound theological significance, me thinks the white knight is talking backwards.

The bible never talks of us being created in Adam

First, you have twisted this around again. You like to rephrase things and use them as a strawman. Adam is always spoken of as the first parent of humanity in the New Testament.

• Called 'son of God', for that reason since he was created not born (Luk 3:38)
• Make's it clear that we all die because of Adam's transgression, even if we don't actually sin.(Rom 5:14)
• Because 'in Adam' we all die, just as in Christ we are made alive (1Cr 15:22)
• Called the 'First man' because he was created and all came from him (1Cr 15:45)
• Created before Eve who is the mother of mankind. (1Ti 2:13)
• Wasn't actually deceived but transgress the law anyway. (1Ti 2:14)
• Enoch is spoken of as the 7th from Adam again reaffirming a strict lineal descent. (Jud 1:14)

I have shown you this repeatedly and yet you insist on changing the clear meaning of Scripture in favor of this worldly philosophy.

and as I pointed out in my last post the miracle with Isaac was that Sarah bore a son in her old age, not that God created another Adam...

God didn't create the embryo, God brought a living son from a dead womb. Only in the New Testament is conception an ex nihilo creation in the perfect sense. The miracle of Isaac's birth was creation in no uncertain terms but not in the perfect sense of 'bara' in Genesis 1:1 or the Incarnation.

Sarah understood better than you do which is why she laughed at the prospect of having sex again in her old age.

I think you meant to say, having a child.

Isaiah uses the perfect to say God created the blacksmith and Malachi uses the perfect to say God created all of us. Ezekiel uses the perfect to describe the place God created the Ammonites, it is not talking about being created in Adam but is talking about the land of they came from Ezek 21:30 In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you.

Bara is only used in the perfect sense in Genesis 1:1. I base that on the reference you provided and not only quoted the renderings of the word in it's different forms but linked to the source material. There is no excuse for this distortion of the use of 'bara' in the perfect sense.

The bible uses bara, create, to refer to the creation of people yet to be born. Psalm 102:18 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD.

There is also going to be a new heavens and a new earth created, what's your point?

...We can't just make up a mean to fit our theology and our interpretation of Genesis, that is doing things completely the wrong way around.

I did look at the Lexicon, Vine looked at the various lexicons. FF Bruce who wrote the forward you quoted earlier read the Lexicons. You have failed to provide a Lexicon proof for what you are saying, your making an ex nihileo ad hominem argument. From out of nothing nothing comes, your's is an argument that never happened.

Thanks for spending the time here Mark. It is good talking to you. Iron sharpens iron as the bible says. Even though we disagree, discussing these topics and the meaning of scripture leads me to study them much more deeply.

I always enjoy these exchanges when I have the time. I've been drifting back into expositional studies, when I get something done with Genesis I'll post it here so we can put all this together. I think a complete exposition of the Genesis account of creation would be helpful.

...Your problem with Vine, was not just that you were quoting someone who wasn't qualified in Hebrew, but that you were trying to establish Vine as the authority who could settle the meaning of the Hebrew. Even with the best scholarship discussion needs to be based on the evidence the experts use to support their understanding of the words.

He wasn't translating the text into English, he didn't need to be an exegesis expert.

I think these are issues the church has to deal with today, as as you say it is a key to apologetics, one of the biggest stumbling blocks is the inspiration and trustworthiness of scripture when traditional interpretations of Genesis are contradicted by what we have learned through science. The church needs to find the answers in spite of the topic getting heated at times. I think they key is what Paul said in Colossians 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. We need grace in our conversation especially when there is plenty of salt.

Amen!

I'm really out of time, thanks for the exchange.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

Paul wrote:

Seriously? Of all that was said there you focused on this mans one comment?

I already responded to the other information in your posts. You posted a lot of information (whole cut and pastes) of articles that were consistent with common descent, and not consistent with YEC. I pointed that out (that they helped my point, not yours). I'm not sure how much more you want. For instance, the genetic evidence of a common male ancestor 300,000 years ago is fully consistent with our evolution from earlier apes, because most individual members of an ancestral population that far back (heck, even as far back as 50,000 years) are common ancestors of everyone alive today. For the same mathematical reasons, if you have had a few kids, it's inevitable that every single human on earth will be descended from you in a equally short time (by geologic standards).

At the same time, the genetic evidence and the common male ancestor 300,000 years ago contradicts YEC in several ways. A few of them are the fact that 300,000 is larger than 6,000, that the common male ancestor lived in a community of at least thousands, and that the common male ancestor never met the common female ancestor, among others.

That same kind of detial on your other topics also shows that your own postings support common descent and don't support YEC, but I didn't feel like doing your own reading for you - you need to spend the time to learn about these yourself.

There is no evidence to prove men evolved from apes or that we shared a common ancestor. It is a theory...and after 150 years and millions of fossils it still has not been demonstrated to be true

After leading the horse to 29+ sources of water, that's all you have? An unsupported statement of obstinancy (couched alongside a statement of ignorance of what a scientific theory is)?

Do you understand that just denying the huge fossil record, which you aren't familiar with anyway, still leaves common descent fully established as fact? Not just common descent, but the same family tree of common descent has been confirmed by method after method.

For instance, if no fossils existed - zero - and if Darwin and Wallace had both died as infants - common descent would be a solid fact today based on genetics and confirmed by comparative anatomy and biogeography. If none of those existed either, then the same family tree of common descent would be a solid fact shown by biochemistry and confirmed by the nested hierarchy and ontogenty. If those too didn't exist, then the same family tree of common descent would be established as a fact by anatomical and molecular suboptimal functions and confirmed by atavisms and so on.

Yet, the fossil record wonderfully supports, again, the same family tree of common descent with a rich array of hundreds of transitional fossils - more than Darwin could have dreamed of, and exactly zero fossils that disprove it, though there are literally millions of hypothetical cases that would do so, if they existed.

Maybe it's a good idea to begin to become familiar with the evidence, instead of just repeating creationist PRATTs. Here is one of thousands of places to start http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/, or simply enroll in the biology, geology, paleontology, anatomy, ontogeny, genetics, phylogeny, or other programs at a local university - including evangelical Christian universities.

See, the point is that if we are going to give a coherent witness for Christ, we need to talk sense, and be aware of the facts of the glorious creation our God has made. Today, as at any time, if non-believers hear us talking nonsense about something they themselves understand, why would they believe us about the gospel, Jesus, and the path to salvation?

Papias

 

[Aman777]

Papias:>>For instance, the genetic evidence of a common male ancestor 300,000 years ago is fully consistent with our evolution from earlier apes, because most individual members of an ancestral population that far back (heck, even as far back as 50,000 years) are common ancestors of everyone alive today.

Dear Papias, What you say is true only in physical terms. Humans today are a combination of ancient men and Adam's descendants. That is why we have the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve, but we also have the human intelligence of Adam, who did NOT evolve from any other living creature.

This is clear in ll Peter 3:3-7 which shows that the "Scoffers" of the last days are "willingly ignorant" that Humans did NOT come from this world, but from the world of Adam, the world that "THEN WAS". The heavens and the Earth "WHICH ARE NOW" are different in many ways from the world of Adam.

Are you aware of this Scripture?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I'm sorry you are so senstive when your interpretation is challenged. It's sad that I have to remind you yet again that we both see the scripture itself as authoritative.

It's sad that you dismiss the clear testimony of Scripture based on a philosophy that is just one long argument against it.

mark, did you intentionally pretend to miss the point (that you are pretending your interpretation is exclusively correct)?

It seems to me that intentionally pretending to miss the point is not having an honest conversation, but instead trying to win points as if it were a hostile debate? If so, doesn't it seem odd that you then accuse me of peforming to an audience? Is that projection?

If your concerned that these debates are delirious to my spiritual well being why don't you try not making them so divisive and argumentative.

I'm sorry if you have found them divisive. In this case, the discussion started with me when you hid data - data that you had hidden before. Perhaps it would have been better to be open about all the data in the first place.

And some people, like Rastafarians, like to have their spiritual well being be made delirious.

Oh, so now you are suddenly an anatomist? The real anatomists agree these clearly aren't modern humans, but are transitional apes. Do you still disagree with the experts and class them as humans, or not?

Actually I'm a realist and fragmentary fossil evidence is sketchy at best.
​

So you admit you have no grounds for your statement that they are modern humans?

The absence of chimpanzee ancestors and the lack of candor regarding the evidence tells me more then all the old bones and dirt ever could.

mark, I've linked to where I listed many chimpanzee anscestors repeatedly in this thread, and even bumped that thread for you, and you still repeat your falsehood that there are no chimpanzee fossils. Do you think that is an honest approach to disucssion?

I said that the Taung Child was a chimpanzee ancestor, nothing more.​

Which is silly - no expert does that. When you repeat obvious falsehoods in ignorance of the actual evidence, why do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Plus, that still leaves dozens of fossills in your supposed "giant leap" or "cerebral rubicon", which show a smooth evolution from chimp like ancestor to us. If your whole goal is remove Taung child, then what's the point of that - other than to provide grist for your insults?

Adam and Eve were our ancestor according to Christ, Paul, Moses and the clear testimony of Scripture whenever it speaks to our lineage.

I agree with that, and you know I do.

Your the one who thinks Adam married an ape, which by the way, is in counter distinction to human but you already knew that.

mark, I hate to break it to you yet again, but we are all apes. So you married an ape too.

It says it right there, mark. Do you deny that the experts are clear that these are not modern human skulls?

If they are anything like Robert Supdsky the facts are impossible to reconcile to the actual evidence.

another evasion. I'm not talking about geneticists, but about anthropologists. A geneticists view of human fossils is irrelevant. And it looks like you didn't even bother to get his name right. Is that because I'm making your spiritual state delirious?

So I'll have to ask again - Do you deny that the experts are clear that these are not modern human skulls?

Because every time a gracial skull is dug up in Africa it's automatically labels Homo XXX, that' why.

Except that the experts can see they are clearly not human skulls, while you, who doesn't even understand what to look for, and hasn't examined casts of the skulls, somehow think you can make an unsupported statement like that and have any credibility? Do you make pronouncement about oncology and give legal briefs too?

Right after you denied you were trying to posit some kind of gap? Then you propose calling it the cerebral rubicon? How about we call 3.392175 feet tall the "vertical rubicon"? Then when my son crosses it, I'll say he suddenly made a giant leap, crossing the vertical rubicon, and have a party!

I don't have a clue what you mean about a 'gap' but all good Darwinian believe that nature does not make leaps. It's called 'Natura non facit saltus', if you are going to defend it you should learn it.
​

maybe you should learn about punctuted equilibrium. Everyone (even Darwin) expected evolution to move at different rates.

First, we were talking about fossils, not molecular biology. Secondly, so mark, are you an expert on molecular biology? What is your degree there?

That's called an argument from credulity and it's as fallacious at the ad hominems you bounce around like tennis shoes in a tumble dryer.

No, it's called 'asking for credentials'. It's part of any rational discussion. Wow, mark, you make all kinds of stuff, and don't even seem to have your fallacy names right. By the way - your whole "cerebral rubicon", is an argument from credulity, if you'd like a real example.

That means for our ancestors to have evolved it would have required a dramatic adaptive evolution of the size just under 2 mya sandwiched between two long periods of relative stasis.

Did you bother to put the dozens of additional skulls I gave you onto the graph, to see if the slope still changes? It doesn't look like you did. If you really cared about the data, you would want to use all of it, right?

It's worth pointing out that you again posted your cherry-picked list of skulls, with the ones in your supposed 'gap' removed.

One such gene would have been....

mark, do you deny that the actual geneticists currently don't see a problem?

Oh, OK, so you don't abandon it? Then just what did you mean by
What's all this nonsense about a 'gap'?? Did you mean that a "giant leap" isn't over a gap? Maybe it was a "giant leap" over a little crack?

It's an a priori assumption, a presumed effect without a cause. I don't know what you think this 'gap' nonsense is but my interest is adaptive evolution not these fallacious clutch phrases.

You again ducked the question. Why did you use the language you did to describe a gap, if you don't think there is one?


​

So then you see the easy and clear trend shown here, when we organize by age? Which of these are you saying are chimp ancestors?

​

I can post images to:

Aside from the lack of basic English, you didn't answer my question. I asked which of those you thought were chimp ancestors. Earlier you said "only Taung child". Really? Then the data above works well for human ancestry, right?

The human brian would have had to triple in size, starting 2 1/2 million years ago and ending 200 to 400 thousand years ago. The brain weight would have had to grow by 250% while the body only grows by 20%. The average brain weight would have to go from 400-450g, 2 1/2 MY ago to 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 MY.

Right, just as a child growing up will have to triple in size over just a matter of years. In both cases, science has shown how and why it happened, with no problems.

"It is generally believed that the brain expansion set the stage for the emergence of human language and other high-order cognitive functions and that it was caused by adaptive selection (DECAN 1992 ), yet the genetic basis of the expansion remains elusive."

......2003

mark, that's a decade old. There has been a lot of genetic work since then. I hope we don't have to get into the many cases where creationists have posted out of date quotes to mislead people.

When do you write anything else?

another duck of a simple question.

Probably because it's old news now. Evolution is solidly established, not just among scientists, but also among Christian colleges, seminaries, and so on. It's just like how I find it harder and harder to debate anybody about how the sun goes around the earth or that disease are the result of demons. As you said yourself, the culture wars are over.
​

The seminaries have been over run with Liberal Theology for at least a hundred years. The culture wars are over, Darwinism and Creationism were the winners ......

sorry, I'm not sure what the point of that was......

mark, as has been explained to you many times, the % is different when you use different ways of counting. If you count a SNP as different, or the whole gene it is in as different, or the subregion, each will give you a different % difference, even though nothing has changed but your counting method.​

The only thing that changed is whether or not you include the indels.

This has been explained to you many times, by people who actually understand genetics. Please go back and read their posts, since you don't appear to have read them, maybe go back and do so?
​

everything you posted as far as evidence is consistent with normal evolution, where the majority of mutations that have an effect are harmful, with a few beneficial ones being winnowed out by natural selection to give an overall beneficial effect. Would it help for me to explain how natural selection keeps the good without being hampered by the harmful mutations again?

No Papias it's not.
​

Sure it is.

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Aman777]

Humans are NOT Apes
Papias:>>For instance, the genetic evidence of a common male ancestor 300,000 years ago is fully consistent with our evolution from earlier apes, because most individual members of an ancestral population that far back (heck, even as far back as 50,000 years) are common ancestors of everyone alive today.

Dear Papias, What you say is true only in physical terms. Humans today are a combination of ancient men and Adam's descendants. That is why we have the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve, but we also have the human intelligence of Adam, who did NOT evolve from any other living creature.

This is clear in ll Peter 3:3-7 which shows that the "Scoffers" of the last days are "willingly ignorant" that Humans did NOT come from this world, but from the world of Adam, the world that "THEN WAS". The heavens and the Earth "WHICH ARE NOW" are different in many ways from the world of Adam.

Are you aware of this Scripture?

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

Aman wrote:

Dear Papias, What you say is true only in physical terms. Humans today are a combination of ancient men and Adam's descendants.

I certainly agree that humans today have DNA from both Adam and other ancient beings alive at the time.

That is why we have the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve, but we also have the human intelligence of Adam,

So eve was not intelligent? That sounds sexist.

who did NOT evolve from any other living creature.

Surely you don't think Adam was created instantly, out of nothing - that's anti-biblical. I think the word of God (in all his revelation) is clear that Adam evolved from earlier apes. I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree there. But it's not a salvation issue.

This is clear in ll Peter 3:3-7 which shows that the "Scoffers" of the last days are "willingly ignorant" that Humans did NOT come from this world, but from the world of Adam, the world that "THEN WAS". The heavens and the Earth "WHICH ARE NOW" are different in many ways from the world of Adam.

Are you aware of this Scripture?

I'm aware of the scripture (I've read the whole 73 books of the Bible front to back, many parts over and over), but I think you may be drawing a different interpretation than most Christians and theologians. Are you saying that Adam came from a different world? But, it sounds off-topic from this thread, which is about views of biological evolution (young, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, etc.). Maybe start a thread on your "alien world" interpretation?

Here is the text:

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
​

In His name-

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

It's not an argument, it's an exposition based on the clear meaning of the word in Scripture. The argument is that it's a denial of the power of God demonstrated at creation and throughout redemptive history.

You are using Vine to tell you the meaning of the word, and insisting we have to take Vine's word for it. That is appeal to authority and is fallacious when Vine isn't even an authority.

Then let's hear your expert exposition and exegesis of 'bara'.

The BDB you quoted is fine, HALOT is even better. The word is used for the work of God in creating, forming, making. It is only used about God, and the object is what God creates, never what God's creation was formed from. It can used for ex nihilo creation, but doesn't address whether the creation is ex nihilo or not. It simply tells us what God created and it tells us that it was God who created,

Let's compare shall we, I'll be using an abbreviated version of both the Hallot and Vines:

Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular of [FONT=&quot]‏בָּרָא[/FONT] (bārā’), which means he created. [FONT=&quot]‏ברי‎[/FONT] to create; Arb. bara’a to create (God), br’ to build, Soq. to give birth,. mbr’ building; [FONT=&quot]→[/FONT] III: in the OT I [FONT=&quot]‏ברא‎[/FONT] is a specifically theological term, the subject of which is invariably God. God creates:

• the heaven and the earth Gn 11,
• the ends of the earth Is 4028, the heaven Is 425 4518,
• a new heaven and a new earth Is 6517, the north and the south Ps 8913,
• the stars Is 4026
• the wind Am 413,
• clouds Is 45 (cj. [FONT=&quot]‏וּבָא‎[/FONT] Sept.),
• the darkness Is 457,
• evil Is 457 with 3rd. sing. sffx.,
• for the salvation that is to come Is 458,
• a new thing Jr 3122,
• man, male and female Gn 127 51f 67 Dt 432 Is 4512,
• us Mal 210 Ps 8948 Sir 1514,
• your, his creator Qoh 121 (v.s.),
• Jacob Is 431,
• Israel 4315, Jerusalem as [FONT=&quot]‏גִּילָה‎[/FONT] and his people as [FONT=&quot]‏מָשׂוֹשׂ‎[/FONT] 6518,
• the individual Jew for his (God’s) glory 437,
• the smith 5416,
• an individual person Qoh 121,
• the sea monsters Gn 121, cj.
• day and night (rd. [FONT=&quot]‏בָּרָאתִי[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]יוֹם‎[/FONT]) Jr 3325,
• the fruit of the lips Is 5719, a clean heart Ps 5112,
• the transformation of nature Is 4120,
• all his work Gn 23, cj. [FONT=&quot]‏תְּהִלּוֹת‎[/FONT] Ex 1511,
• with cognate object Nu 1630; abs. Is 6518; [FONT=&quot]‏בוראו‎[/FONT] his creator Sir 316; [FONT=&quot]‏בָּרָא‎[/FONT] || [FONT=&quot]‏יָצַר‎[/FONT] Is 431.7.

(The Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm)

bä·rä' (H1254 - bara' [FONT=&quot]בָּרָא[/FONT]), "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, sicne it has only God as it's subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bä·rä'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale:

• In the beginning God cread the heaven and the earth (Gen.1:1)
• Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (Gen. 2:3)
• Lift up your eyes on high, And see who has created these things, Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, By the greatness of His might And the strength of His power; Not one is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)
• Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:26)

(Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Vine, Unger, White)

The meanings are identical, the Lexicon is just more complete.

The meaning is very similar except where Vine claims bara means creation out of nothing. That is Vine's own non expert assumption, and it is the issue you want us to take Vine's word on.

I know what it means, I think you know what it mean, the problem is believing what it says. If you have a problem with either my exposition or Vine's then where is your exposition of the text in question?

You said: "Now, as to whether or not it's an absolute 'out of nothing' we really don't know."
Now could you address my point?
If you don't know whether bara means out of nothing or not, I suggest you stop using the term 'ex nihilo'...

On the contrary, it is the creation of something new that is at the heart of our discussion. This kind of absurd rationalization is what's wrong with your whole approach to both science and theology. You call black white and up down, you change the explicit meaning of words and twist them around to mean the opposite of the intended meaning:
in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16)

Again you can't seem to address my point. It is not whether Genesis is describing the creation of something new, it is whether the word bara includes the meaning of something new. You accuse me of calling black white and up down, but you can't deal with the simplest questions about how we understand the meaning of a word.

It's unique in the opening verse of Genesis 1:1 in that creation is spoken of in absolute terms. It is the only time that 'bara' is used in the perfect sense. That's why the term may only be applied to God as the subject, only God can create in the sense of 'bara'. While the other uses of the term in Genesis and elsewhere indicate an 'imperfect' or other sense of the word the clear meaning is unmistakable.

You are still misusing the grammatical term perfect, now you you are misusing the imperfect. How do you know Genesis 1:1 is the reason bara is only used for God? How do you know it isn't simply the term Hebrew used for God making things? How do you know Genesis 1:1 is the only time bara is used in the absolute sense? How do you know the meaning we find throughout the OT isn't used in Genesis 1:1 as well, because it describes God's work of creating the heavens and the earth? Picking one verse to decide the absolute meaning of bara claim is arbitrary leaving you having to claim all the other uses throughout the OT have another meaning.

It's not my intention to discourage your faith in Christ, I'm here to remind you of it. That is the only known cure for the blind ignorance we all share when we first became acquainted with the divine nature and eternal attributes of God, made clear, since the creation of the world:
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (Romans 1:16-19)
God created the universe, life and mankind in the sense of 'bara', no natural process is implied or should be inferred. The message of Genesis is not hard to understand, you either believe it or you don't.
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)
I don't do this for sport Assyrian, I debate you and the other Theistic Evolutionists on here because Darwinism is poison. Creationism is a warning label on the transcendent nature of Darwinian logic. What they reject is not just an historical event by which God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in their vast array, they do but that's not all. They reject God's work in redemptive history continuing to this day until the redemption of the purchase price. Walking in lock step order with this profoundly worldly philosophy is a poison pill for theistic reasoning.

We believe God created the heavens and the earth. We believe God created each one of us, which is more then you do. You read your theology into the meaning of Hebrew words in your fight against worldly philosophy, or rather your fight against science, but the terrible cost is you lose yourself as God's creation, in your supposed real meaning of create.

Without precursors.
Ex nihilo is a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing". It often appears in conjunction with the concept of creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing"—chiefly in philosophical or theological contexts, but also occurs in other fields. (Ex nihilo)
The phrase 'ex nihilo' can also be used to describe the argument you are making for 'bara'. Specifically you said that it's not a 'new creation', meaningless to our discussion. There is no basis for the statement, it's, 'an answer to a question provided with no working, thus appearing to have developed "out of nothing". (see Wikipedia Ex nihilo)

Out of nothing is ex nihilo I was asking what you meant by a perfect ex nihilo, specifically because you described an ex nihilo that was "just not a perfect ex nihilo".

Moses was writing an historical narrative, the literal interpretation is always preferred. There is no indication that Moses was writing to convey a metaphorical meaning, the absence qualifiers for that kind of a literary style are no where to be found in the Genesis account of creation.

Where are the qualifiers in Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself? Where are the qualifiers in Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm?

It's not used in the perfect tense, Hebrew grammar doesn't really work that way. It is used in the perfect 'sense' in Genesis 1:1 because the verse is in absolute terms. When it's used of the creation of life or man the 'sense' of the term is not as strong, that is, it can be used in an 'imperfect' since if for instance, man is created from dust. The creation of the universe was a perfectly new creation, before this act of God there was nothing. That same sense is used of the creation of man just not perfectly since man was created from dust while the universe had no precursors.

Completed action rather then a temporal action. This is the 'perfect' sense in which Creation happened in Genesis 1:1. At the end of creation it was finished in all it's vast array. I don't know what you think I misunderstood about the meaning but it sounds like yet another fallacious stab in the dark.

Ease back on the paranoia there Mark. This is not a personal attack on you, I'm telling you you don't understand the perfect and imperfect of Hebrew verbs. It is not about whether a verb is being used in a 'absolute' sense, but about whether the action is finished or not. A verb in the perfect is the exact same action as an imperfect, it is just that the the imperfect is incomplete or ongoing, the perfect means the action is finished. I cooked dinner. That is the perfect. Dinner is ready, potatoes are mashed and the Irish stew is ready to dish out. I was cooking dinner when you called. That is the imperfect, I was busy peeling carrots when you arrived. It is the same meaning of cook, the difference is whether the activity is still going on or not. Like I said many of the verses describing God creating people uses the perfect, even though they are not created ex nihilo.

Bara is of profound theological significance, me thinks the white knight is talking backwards.

Of course it is, since it is only used of God making things. But that meaning can be seen in every instance bara is used in the bible. Be careful not to read theology into Hebrew word meanings. We should get our theology from scripture, not make the words of scripture fit our theology, especially when it doesn't fit the way God used the word bara throughout the rest of scripture. Harken unto the dormouse Mark.

To be continued...

 

[Assyrian]

Continued...

First, you have twisted this around again.

Mark: God did create us, he created us in the bara sense 'in Adam',
Assyrian: The bible never talks of us being created in Adam
​

What have I twisted around?

You like to rephrase things and use them as a strawman. Adam is always spoken of as the first parent of humanity in the New Testament.

• Called 'son of God', for that reason since he was created not born (Luk 3:38)
• Make's it clear that we all die because of Adam's transgression, even if we don't actually sin.(Rom 5:14)
• Because 'in Adam' we all die, just as in Christ we are made alive (1Cr 15:22)
• Called the 'First man' because he was created and all came from him (1Cr 15:45)
• Created before Eve who is the mother of mankind. (1Ti 2:13)
• Wasn't actually deceived but transgress the law anyway. (1Ti 2:14)
• Enoch is spoken of as the 7th from Adam again reaffirming a strict lineal descent. (Jud 1:14)

I have shown you this repeatedly and yet you insist on changing the clear meaning of Scripture in favor of this worldly philosophy.

Did you throw in your 'worldly philosophy' accusation because none of those verses say we were created in Adam?

God didn't create the embryo, God brought a living son from a dead womb. Only in the New Testament is conception an ex nihilo creation in the perfect sense. The miracle of Isaac's birth was creation in no uncertain terms but not in the perfect sense of 'bara' in Genesis 1:1 or the Incarnation.

You do realise Christ wasn't created, that he is eternal and preexisted the incarnation?

I think you meant to say, having a child.

Genesis 18:12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, "After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?" It wasn't the prospect of going through labour that gave Sarah the giggles.

Bara is only used in the perfect sense in Genesis 1:1. I base that on the reference you provided and not only quoted the renderings of the word in it's different forms but linked to the source material. There is no excuse for this distortion of the use of 'bara' in the perfect sense.

Here is Genesis 1:1 with the e-sword KJV+TVM Stong's numbers for created
H1254
בּרא
bârâ'
baw-raw'
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): - choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
H8804
Stem -Qal See [H8851]
Mood -Perfect See [H8816]
Count-12562

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created[sup]H1254 [H8804][/sup] the heaven and the earth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[sup]bara [ Qal Perfect][/sup]
Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created[sup]H1254 [H8804][/sup] the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [sup]bara [Qal Perfect][/sup]
and I have created[sup]H1254 [H8804][/sup] the waster to destroy.
. . . . . . . . . [sup]bara [Qal Perfect][/sup]
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created[sup]H1254 [H8804][/sup] us?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [sup]bara [Qal Perfect][/sup]
Ezekiel uses the perfect as well, this time it is the Niphal perfect (Niphal is the passive of Qal)
Ezekiel 21:30 I will judge thee in the place where thou wast created[sup]H1254 [H8738][/sup], in the land of thy nativity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . [sup]bara [Niphal Perfect][/sup]

There is also going to be a new heavens and a new earth created, what's your point?

My point is the bible speaks of people who are going to be created, not ones were created 'in Adam'.

I did look at the Lexicon, Vine looked at the various lexicons. FF Bruce who wrote the forward you quoted earlier read the Lexicons. You have failed to provide a Lexicon proof for what you are saying, your making an ex nihileo ad hominem argument. From out of nothing nothing comes, your's is an argument that never happened.

And yet you don't find Vine's claim that bara means ex nihilo in any scholarly lexicons. How do you know Vine got his idea from a lexicon? BDB was the best lexicon around at the time Vine wrote his word study and it makes no mention of bara being ex nihilo. F.F.Bruce read lexicons, but he didn't write Vine's entry on bara and he didn't commend Vine's Hebrew expertise. If bara meant ex nihilo then all the good lexicons would tell us, but we have looked at BDB at HALOT I have pointed you to Gesenius in the buleletterbible site and even showed you Strong's. None of them say bara means create ex nihilo or that Genesis 1:1 is the only time bara is used in the 'perfect sense' as you put it. What you are doing is picking a teacher according to your own desires which Paul warns us against, hanging on to Vine's even though you know he wasn't a Hebrew scholar and that the very claim you latch onto is the one that is unsupported in scholarly lexicons.

I always enjoy these exchanges when I have the time. I've been drifting back into expositional studies, when I get something done with Genesis I'll post it here so we can put all this together. I think a complete exposition of the Genesis account of creation would be helpful.

Let's hope you make it past firmament

He wasn't translating the text into English, he didn't need to be an exegesis expert.

You need to be an even better expert to come up with word meanings in a dictionary. It is Vines's views about the meaning of bara that are the issue here.

Amen!

It is good to agree with you Mark

I'm really out of time, thanks for the exchange.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Good talking to you

 

[Aman777]

Aman wrote:

Dear Papias, What you say is true only in physical terms. Humans today are a combination of ancient men and Adam's descendants.
​

Papias:>>I certainly agree that humans today have DNA from both Adam and other ancient beings alive at the time.

Aman:>>That is why we have the DNA of Mitochondrial Eve, but we also have the human intelligence of Adam,

Papias:>>So eve was not intelligent? That sounds sexist.

Dear Papias, Mitochondrial Eve was not human because she did not descend from Adam. Adam never walked on our Planet and he was made with a higher intelligence than any creature whose origin was in the water, on our Earth.

Aman:>>who did NOT evolve from any other living creature.

Papias:>>Surely you don't think Adam was created instantly, out of nothing - that's anti-biblical. I think the word of God (in all his revelation) is clear that Adam evolved from earlier apes. I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree there. But it's not a salvation issue.

Adam was made from the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day (Gen 2:4-7) long BEFORE creatures were created and brought forth from the water, on Day 5. (Gen 1:21) This destroys the false notion that humans descended from other living beings. This becomes a salvation issue when one dismisses God's Holy Word in favor of man's mistaken views.

Aman:>>This is clear in ll Peter 3:3-7 which shows that the "Scoffers" of the last days are "willingly ignorant" that Humans did NOT come from this world, but from the world of Adam, the world that "THEN WAS". The heavens and the Earth "WHICH ARE NOW" are different in many ways from the world of Adam.

Are you aware of this Scripture?

Papias:>>I'm aware of the scripture (I've read the whole 73 books of the Bible front to back, many parts over and over), but I think you may be drawing a different interpretation than most Christians and theologians. Are you saying that Adam came from a different world?

Yes. Adam's world was made the 2nd Day (Genesis 1:6-8) and our world was NOT made until the 3rd Day. (Genesis 2:4)

Papias:>>But, it sounds off-topic from this thread, which is about views of biological evolution (young, old earth creationism, theistic evolution, etc.). Maybe start a thread on your "alien world" interpretation?

This thread is about origins, and I don't have an "alien world" interpretation. The world of Adam was totally destroyed in the Flood. The Scoffers of the last days will be "willingly ignorant" that the world that THEN WAS was totally destroyed in the Flood. They will also be "willingly ignorant" that the world WHICH IS NOW will be burned.

Papias:>>Here is the text:

I prefer the KJV:

ll Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

This is confirmation that the world which was made on the 2nd Day has been totally destroyed since the Greek meaning of the word "perished" means destroyed, totally.

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The world of Adam, the world that then was, is gone and the world which is now is scheduled to be burned. Are you aware of the difference between these two worlds?

Humans arrived on this Planet in an Ark some 10k years ago. Human civilization on this Earth can be traced to the arrival of Noah in the mountains of Ararat. Noah brought the higher human intelligence of Adam to this planet of people whose origin was in the water. This destroys the mistaken view of theistic evolution, which falsely believes that we evolved our human intelligence from other living creatures.

Do you believe God's Holy Word or are you one of the Scoffers of the last days?

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Papias]

Aman wrote:

Adam was made from the dust of the ground on the 3rd Day (Gen 2:4-7) long BEFORE creatures were created and brought forth from the water, on Day 5. (Gen 1:21)

Being that we see the basic genre of Genesis differently (I see it as including a poetic genre, and thus interpret it with that in mind, while you see it as a literal recording of literal events, and interpret it literally), our discussing the events of each "day" is pointless. You could have a rational discussion with others who interpret it strictly literally (including others who prefer the KJV, which I don't). There are many such people here in origins theology.


In fact, you already have a whole thread on your interpretation where you are discussing this. I wish you the best in discussing it with others who take a literal interpretation.

Have a good day-

Papias

 

[Aman777]

Papias:>>Being that we see the basic genre of Genesis differently (I see it as including a poetic genre, and thus interpret it with that in mind, while you see it as a literal recording of literal events, and interpret it literally), our discussing the events of each "day" is pointless. You could have a rational discussion with others who interpret it strictly literally (including others who prefer the KJV, which I don't). There are many such people here in origins theology.


Dear Papias, I appreciate you being honest with me. Those who take the opportunity to change Scripture into whatever they please, don't like my views. They are happier with Godless Evolutionists and Atheists than they are with me. I thought the people on this board were Bible believing Christians. Thanks again for correcting my false assumption.


In Love,
Aman