6,000 Years?

Job 33:6 · Saturday at 11:20 AM

Amo2 said:
YEC is not about or concerning the amount of time the earth was a formless void. It is about and addresses this present earth which absolutely is not a formless void. A void is a space filled with nothing.

Void - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

A void is empty space, nothingness, zero, zilch. A place that's void of all life forms has no sign of animals, plants, or people.

www.vocabulary.com

void
Share

/vɔɪd/

/vɔɪd/
IPA guide
Other forms: voided; voids; voiding; voidly

A void is empty space, nothingness, zero, zilch. A place that's void of all life forms has no sign of animals, plants, or people.

You may recognize void from the Old Testament passage describing creation: "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep." In other words, nothing was there: pure emptiness. When you void something or make it void, you make it legally invalid, and that kind of voidoften goes with null. You might tell Cinderella, "If you're not back by midnight, that arrangement with the pumpkin and the mice is null and void."

YEC is about the age of the earth. And there is nothing in the Hebrew text that implies that tohu means "empty space". Anyone who spends 5 minutes looking at the use of tohu in the Bible knows this.

The terms tohu wa bohu, and a review of what the terms mean and how they're used, would help us answer that. When we look at scripture, we find that these terms do not suggest a lack of material existence. But rather, they say something about the condition that the object is in.

Tohu is used 20 times in the Bible.

Genesis 1:2
Deuteronomy 32:10
1 Samuel 12:21 x2
Job 6:18
Job 12:24
Job 26:7
Psalm 107:40
Isaiah 24:10
Isaiah 29:21
Isaiah 34:11
Isaiah 40:17
Isaiah 40:23
Isaiah 41:29
Isaiah 44:9
Isaiah 44:18
Isaiah 45:19
Isaiah 49:4
Isaiah 59:4 and
Jeremiah 4:23

And what we see when we review these passages are that, the term moreso relates to purpose or meaning or function, than it does an actual materialistic formlessness.

So for example:
Isaiah 40:17 ESV
[17] All the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

The "nothing" here isn't saying that the nations are space-time voids of emptiness. Rather they are "nothing" in the sense of being worthless or meaningless.

Deuteronomy 32:10 ESV
[10] “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

A desert land, in the howling waste of the wilderness.

Again, it's not empty space. It's just a place of worthless meaninglessness.

A third example:
Jeremiah 4:23-26 ESV
[23] I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. [24] I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. [25] I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. [26] I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

Again, it's not that the earth wasn't there. God is looking down on it. There were mountains. There were birds that had fled. There was a desert, the cities were in ruin.

Again, it's not that the earth was not there. It was there. It was just meaningless, worthless. Wasteland. Nothing meaningful or productive.

So when we go back to Genesis, with this understanding of tohu in mind:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

You see, the earth is there.

It's just worthless. And God takes that worthless earth, and creates it into something good. Tohu wa bohu, formless and empty. And God takes it and gives it form (on days 1-3) and then God fills it (days 4-6) and then by the end of the 6 days, it is very good. Meaningful, purposeful, and no longer empty because it's filled with animals (and people).

So with that perspective in mind, we can then ask, what is the age of the earth in the Bible? And the answer is, the text doesn't actually say.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

When God created it, or went to create it, began to create it, it was [already] tohu wa bohu.

In the beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth, is another way some have explained this. In the beginning of God creating...

The earth was. And different translations word this differently to try to make the Hebrew make sense in English. Because Hebrew doesn't have a clean 1:1 English match.

Amo2 · Saturday at 11:37 AM

The Barbarian said:
Most of them also accept the existence of lightning. For the same reasons. Most of the world's Christians accept evolution. Again, for the same reasons.

I should certainly hope not. Atheists accept evolution because it is an obvious alternative to God. That is to say, believing that there is no God, they must attribute our existence to some form of randomness. Atheistic evolution provides them with just that.

The Barbarian said:
You were misled about that. Darwin himself pointed out that the rates of evolutionary change would depend on selective pressure. And very rapid evolution (in some cases) was predicted by his associate Thomas Huxley.

Interesting, please provide references to these observations by Darwin and Huxley. This of course does not address much more recent claims by evolutionary scientists who plainly state that changes seem to take place much more rapidly than they once thought. We didn't say that, they did.

The Barbarian said:
No, that's wrong, too. For example, the first billion years or so of life shows only fossils of prokaryotes. The Edicaran fauna (preceding the Cambrian) showed only very simple animals. Again, it's not what they told you.

Apart from your presumptions concerning billions of years, there is no such things as a simple animal. We know today that a single cell is unimaginably complex. Far more complex than anything humanity has made with exact intent, purpose, forethought, and accumulative knowledge. The simple to complex scenario of biological evolution is a complete farce.

The Biological Complexity of Single Cell Life and Structure is Evidence of the Intelligent Design in God's Creation

Microbiology, biological complexity of Eukaryotes and the complex single cell structure of Prokaryotes and MO-1 proton cells are evidence of intelligent design, the origins of life by creation of God and expose the myth of the theory of evolution.

www.genesisalive.com

The Barbarian said:
Biological evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origin of the universe. They might have lied to you about that, or they could have actually been ignorant enough to think it does.

I didn't say it did, that is another false presumption on your part. They are of course different scientific fields or disciplines. Nevertheless, they both promote deep time simple to complex scenarios regarding the development of the fields of their study. Biological evolution being of course exactly what it states. The evolution of the universes of course relating to just that. But you already know this of course.

The Barbarian said:
Genesis is about God and man and our relationship. If you try to twist it into a science text, you'll be constantly misled.

To the contrary. YEC's are not the ones trying to explain exactly how everything came into existence, evolutionists are. We are just the ones trying to show that the existing evidence does support the creation account in Genesis. It seems you are accusing us of being the ones who are doing exactly what you and evolutionists are exactly doing. Trying to tell everyone exactly how everything came into being, with your supposed "Scientific" theories. Scripture though, has addressed the supposed wisdom of fallen humanity.

1 Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

The Barbarian said:
It doesn't describe plate tectonics, either. There's a lot of things that are true, that aren't mentioned in Genesis. Again, it's not intended to be a science text.

What are you, some kind of master of the obvious? Who has ever said, it is intended to be a scientific text? Genesis is not trying to explain how God did what it says He did, neither are YEC's. This I say again, is the task taken up by evolutionists, not YEC's. They are the one's claiming scientific knowledge of exactly how it all came about, not YEC's. We just acknowledge that God is a being capable of bringing it about by His word as scripture describes, not how He does so. Evolutionists reject this biblical concept, in favor of their own "scientific" theories regarding an unobservable deep time past of slow developments.

Psa 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The Barbarian · Saturday at 12:24 PM

Amo2 said:
I should certainly hope not. Atheists accept evolution because it is an obvious alternative to God.

No more than gravity is an obvious alternative to God.

You were misled about that. Darwin himself pointed out that the rates of evolutionary change would depend on selective pressure. And very rapid evolution (in some cases) was predicted by his associate Thomas Huxley.

Amo2 said:
Interesting, please provide references to these observations by Darwin and Huxley.

Huxley thought that an evolving lineage might make rapid jumps, or saltations.
Thomas Huxley

Darwin's point was that a well-fitted population in an unchanging environment would be prevented from evolving by natural selection. I've loaned out my copy of On the Origin of Species, but I'll look it up online somewhere if you doubt it. His assumption that such environments could be unchanging over long periods of time was only an approximation of the truth. In fact, studies show that environments, even apparently constant ones change over time, and populations evolve to adapt. The usual situation is that the environment varies around a mean,and the population varies with it, apparently changing very little over time. This has been repeatedly demonstrated:

Darwin’s Dilemma: “Paradox of Stasis” Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology

By lassoing lizards, putting tiny chips on their legs, and tracking them for three years, Georgia Tech's James Stroud revealed why species often appear unchanged for millions of years despite Charles Darwin's theory of constant evolution. Charles Darwin said that evolution was constantly happenin

scitechdaily.com

Amo2 said:
This of course does not address much more recent claims by evolutionary scientists who plainly state that changes seem to take place much more rapidly than they once thought. We didn't say that, they did.

Turns out, Huxley, over a hundred years ago, had it exactly right. Rapid evolution can happen in some cases. Because of the processes Darwin discovered. Would you like to hear about some observed cases of rapid evolutionary change?

No, that's wrong, too. For example, the first billion years or so of life shows only fossils of prokaryotes. The Edicaran fauna (preceding the Cambrian) showed only very simple animals. Again, it's not what they told you.

Amo2 said:
Apart from your presumptions concerning billions of years, there is no such things as a simple animal.

You have two errors there. First, evidence, not presumptions, shows billions of years. Even honest and knowledgeable creationists admit that the evidence shows this. Second, the evolution of animals was preceded by over a billion years of prokaryotes. As you learned earlier, evolutionary theory doesn't make any claims about how life began. Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. But it is true that the Ediacaran fauna is very much simpler than other animals. Would you like to learn about it?

Amo2 said:
We know today that a single cell is unimaginably complex. Far more complex than anything humanity has made with exact intent, purpose, forethought, and accumulative knowledge.

You don't believe in the internet? Or perhaps you don't know how to measure complexity. C'mon. The simplest known living cell has 473 genes. Calculate the complexity of that cell then calculate the complexity of the internet. Let us know what you find.

Biological evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origin of the universe. They might have lied to you about that, or they could have actually been ignorant enough to think it does.

Amo2 said:
They are of course different scientific fields or disciplines. Nevertheless, they both promote deep time simple to complex scenarios regarding the development of the fields of their study.

Probably a mistake for you to bring it up, then.

Genesis is about God and man and our relationship. If you try to twist it into a science text, you'll be constantly misled.

Amo2 said:
To the contrary. YEC's are not the ones trying to explain exactly how everything came into existence, evolutionists are.

You still don't get it. Evolutionary theory is not even about how life came into existence, much less how everything did. You're projecting YEC assumptions on science.

Amo2 said:
We are just the ones trying to show that the existing evidence does support the creation account in Genesis.

It does. It just doesn't support the YEC revisions of Genesis. YECs suppose themselves wise enough to make scripture fit their expectations, but their thoughts are in vain.

1 Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

They could use a little humility, I think.

And the orthodox interpretation of Genesis, is that the Trinity is revealed thereby. God the father created all things in the beginning. The Spirit hovered over creation as it formed, by the Word. Jesus is revealed as the Word in scripture. It's not mere sounds articulated by a mouth; it's the Son of God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Why not just accept it God's way?

Amo2 · Saturday at 2:32 PM

FaithT said:
Personally, I would not worship a God who gave us a brain to discern all the evidence and then expected us to believe otherwise.

That is the contention of course. What does the evidence really say.

Job 33:6 · Saturday at 2:55 PM

Amo2 said:
That is the contention of course. What does the evidence really say.

The evidence is one thing. But doesn't what the Bible says, matter more?

The terms tohu wa bohu, and a review of what the terms mean and how they're used, would help us answer that. When we look at scripture, we find that these terms do not suggest a lack of material existence. But rather, they say something about the condition that the object is in.

Tohu is used 20 times in the Bible.

Genesis 1:2
Deuteronomy 32:10
1 Samuel 12:21 x2
Job 6:18
Job 12:24
Job 26:7
Psalm 107:40
Isaiah 24:10
Isaiah 29:21
Isaiah 34:11
Isaiah 40:17
Isaiah 40:23
Isaiah 41:29
Isaiah 44:9
Isaiah 44:18
Isaiah 45:19
Isaiah 49:4
Isaiah 59:4 and
Jeremiah 4:23

And what we see when we review these passages are that, the term moreso relates to purpose or meaning or function, than it does an actual materialistic formlessness.

So for example:
Isaiah 40:17 ESV
[17] All the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

The "nothing" here isn't saying that the nations are space-time voids of emptiness. Rather they are "nothing" in the sense of being worthless or meaningless.

Deuteronomy 32:10 ESV
[10] “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

A desert land, in the howling waste of the wilderness.

Again, it's not empty space. It's just a place of worthless meaninglessness.

A third example:
Jeremiah 4:23-26 ESV
[23] I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. [24] I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. [25] I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. [26] I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

Again, it's not that the earth wasn't there. God is looking down on it. There were mountains. There were birds that had fled. There was a desert, the cities were in ruin.

Again, it's not that the earth was not there. It was there. It was just meaningless, worthless. Wasteland. Nothing meaningful or productive.

So when we go back to Genesis, with this understanding of tohu in mind:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

You see, the earth is there.

It's just worthless. And God takes that worthless earth, and creates it into something good. Tohu wa bohu, formless and empty. And God takes it and gives it form (on days 1-3) and then God fills it (days 4-6) and then by the end of the 6 days, it is very good. Meaningful, purposeful, and no longer empty because it's filled with animals (and people).

So with that perspective in mind, we can then ask, what is the age of the earth in the Bible? And the answer is, the text doesn't actually say.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

When God created it, or went to create it, began to create it, it was [already] tohu wa bohu.

In the beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth, is another way some have explained this. In the beginning of God creating...

The earth was. And different translations word this differently to try to make the Hebrew make sense in English. Because Hebrew doesn't have a clean 1:1 English match.

Amo2 · Saturday at 3:17 PM

The Barbarian said:
No more than gravity is an obvious alternative to God.

You were misled about that. Darwin himself pointed out that the rates of evolutionary change would depend on selective pressure. And very rapid evolution (in some cases) was predicted by his associate Thomas Huxley.

Huxley thought that an evolving lineage might make rapid jumps, or saltations.
Thomas Huxley

Darwin's point was that a well-fitted population in an unchanging environment would be prevented from evolving by natural selection. I've loaned out my copy of On the Origin of Species, but I'll look it up online somewhere if you doubt it. His assumption that such environments could be unchanging over long periods of time was only an approximation of the truth. In fact, studies show that environments, even apparently constant ones change over time, and populations evolve to adapt. The usual situation is that the environment varies around a mean,and the population varies with it, apparently changing very little over time. This has been repeatedly demonstrated:

Darwin’s Dilemma: “Paradox of Stasis” Lizard Study Challenges the Rules of Evolutionary Biology

By lassoing lizards, putting tiny chips on their legs, and tracking them for three years, Georgia Tech's James Stroud revealed why species often appear unchanged for millions of years despite Charles Darwin's theory of constant evolution. Charles Darwin said that evolution was constantly happenin

scitechdaily.com

Turns out, Huxley, over a hundred years ago, had it exactly right. Rapid evolution can happen in some cases. Because of the processes Darwin discovered. Would you like to hear about some observed cases of rapid evolutionary change?

Very interesting, we do not however observe rapid evolution as in from one species to another. We observe rapid change and or adaption, which can just as easily be a built in function of design, rather than random chance evolutionary processes. Or moreover, is far more likely a designed feature of creation built in by God who foresaw the need of adaption and change. Random chance processes could never produce such complex systems of adaption and change. We have also observed that these changes do also revert back to their original form, if or when the former environment returns as well.

Thomas Huxley

Thomas Huxley - A scientist and philosopher of the 19th century, Huxley was most famous for his vehement defense of Darwin and evolution.

www.allaboutscience.org

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Thomas Huxley
QUESTION: Why was Thomas Huxley nicknamed "Darwin's Bulldog"?

ANSWER:

Of all of the proponents of evolution, Thomas Huxley's nickname helped him stand out above all the rest - "Darwin's Bulldog." Thomas Huxley was a scientist and philosopher of the 19th century. He was most famous for his vehement defense of evolution as the source of earth's diverse life forms. He once said that he "protected" Darwin, referring to himself as "his bull dog." The moniker stuck, despite the philosophical and historical differences between the two men. Huxley was famed for some of his other exploits. Among these, his debate with Archbishop Samuel Wilberforce, his "progressive" philosophical work, and his supposed coining of the term "agnostic."

Huxley was initially reluctant to throw his full support behind evolution. This was common before Darwin published "The Origin of Species." Darwin did not invent evolution by any stretch of the imagination. There were many scientists who preferred the concept of evolution to creation. Yet, there was no logical, plausible explanation for how evolution proceeded. Darwin's book suggested the mechanism of natural selection, and was embraced by a community eager for support of their preferred view.

Thomas Huxley was one such supporter. He was thrilled by Darwin's work, and defended it to great publicity and effect. Huxley did not agree with the entirety of Darwin's theories, however. Huxley could see the problems with Darwin's slow-moving, gradual evolution. There was (and still is) a lack of fossil evidence to support transitional forms, and a great deal of evidence to suggest a sudden explosion of new species. Huxley believed in a much more rapid evolution - a notion that entirely different species could spring up in just a few generations. Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin argued endlessly about their differing views on evolution.

Huxley also tangled with scientists for mixing his philosophical and scientific work. There are many instances in Huxley's work where he takes on an anti-religious message, somewhat off-topic. Thomas Huxley had a marked involvement with agnostic and atheistic philosophy. He was unaffected by those who tried to discredit his scientific work on the basis of his religious beliefs. While his philosophy does not invalidate his science, it does help to shed some light on his dogged pursuit of evolutionary theory.

Darwin's theory, according to Huxley, was the "best available explanation" for evolution. A point often lost is that Huxley admitted that Darwin's theory did not "prove evolution." Much as a witness in a court case can provide a plausible explanation for events, that explanation is nothing but theory until it has been proven beyond all doubt. The lack of direct evidence for Darwin's theory of natural selection was what kept Thomas Huxley, the skeptic, from throwing his full support behind it. Yet it was his desire to find naturalistic explanations for life that truly gave "Darwin's Bulldog" a reason to bare his teeth.

Huxley was also right about the lack of fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution. Which lack still exists to this very day. That is the complete lack of fossil evidence of transitionary forms. The few that are being claimed being highly contested even among evolutionists themselves. Interesting to note that he was also involved in agnostic or atheistic philosophies, as I have pointed out regarding many of the evolutionary mindset. That this theory is a logical choice of "scientific" persuit for them.
Nice to see also, that he admitted that evolution was not a proved theory. YEC's of course agree with his views regarding rapid change, though not regarding rapid macro evolution, but rather built in designed features for adaption and change as needed.

FaithT · Saturday at 3:23 PM

Amo2 said:
That is the contention of course. What does the evidence really say.

That the earth, universe and people evolved. And BTW, I’m Catholic, not an atheist. And my priest is fine with the belief in evolution. In fact they teach it in science at my churches’ grade school.

2PhiloVoid · Saturday at 3:58 PM

Amo2 said:
That is the contention of course. What does the evidence really say.

What is the nature of evidence and what counts as 'evidence'? That's the first epistemic question that needs to be answered.

Amo2 · Saturday at 4:44 PM

No, that's wrong, too. For example, the first billion years or so of life shows only fossils of prokaryotes. The Edicaran fauna (preceding the Cambrian) showed only very simple animals. Again, it's not what they told you.

No, you are wrong, about billions of years and supposedly simple life forms.

NO “SIMPLE” LIFE FORM EXISTS – Evolution is a Myth

The following quotes are from article at the link above, where the article may be viewed in its entirety.

NO “SIMPLE” LIFE FORM EXISTS

The living cell is not run by some “jelly-like” substance as imagined by Darwin and scientists of his era, who were completely unaware what they called “protoplasm” were actually horrendously complex machines composed of molecules. Molecules assembled by the living cell into propellers, motors, trucks, carriers, roads, builders, garbage disposals, cutters, traffic lights, road signs, pumps, and much more. Sorry Darwin, no simple life exists.

From: Extreme Complexity of the Simplest Living Cell, Don Stoner

Prokaryotes are the “simplest” known living organisms. Bacteria flagellum are such prokaryotes. This overview is grossly over simplified but it is designed to reveal the extremely complex and nano precision and cascade of events required for prokaryotes cellular function. Many functions are left out of this overview and many functions remain well beyond the grasp of human understanding at this time in science..............................

You have two errors there. First, evidence, not presumptions, shows billions of years. Even honest and knowledgeable creationists admit that the evidence shows this. Second, the evolution of animals was preceded by over a billion years of prokaryotes. As you learned earlier, evolutionary theory doesn't make any claims about how life began. Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. But it is true that the Ediacaran fauna is very much simpler than other animals. Would you like to learn about it?

There is nothing to learn. No billions of years but those imagined by those wishing it to be so, regarding highly inaccurate tests which themselves are built upon certain unavoidable presumptions which cannot be known for sure by anyone. I would be interested though, in references to Darwin's belief that God created the first living things. As already pointed out above, there is nothing simple about Prokaryotes.

You don't believe in the internet? Or perhaps you don't know how to measure complexity. C'mon. The simplest known living cell has 473 genes. Calculate the complexity of that cell then calculate the complexity of the internet. Let us know what you find.

Biological evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origin of the universe. They might have lied to you about that, or they could have actually been ignorant enough to think it does.

No, the simplest known living cell is not simple. Nor is it natural, it is the product of fallen humanity playing around with things they do not yet understand well at all. Read the following article from the link below, and understand, that we cannot call that which we do not yet understand at all, simple.

We Built the World’s Simplest Cell—but Dunno How It Works

Scientists recently unveiled the most pared-down creature ever, but even they can’t figure out what all its genes are for.

www.nationalgeographic.com

For the atheistic evolutionist, one certainly does have everything to do with the other, as there is and can be no God or designer. Nothing to begin life as many theistic evolutionists believe. They might suggest aliens, but then where did the aliens come from, of course.

Probably a mistake for you to bring it up, then.

Genesis is about God and man and our relationship. If you try to twist it into a science text, you'll be constantly misled.

Repeating bogus points that have already been addressed, doesn't make them any more true.

You still don't get it. Evolutionary theory is not even about how life came into existence, much less how everything did. You're projecting YEC assumptions on science.

I would say that believing God started the first forms of "simple" life, and then random chance evolution took over from there up to what we see now, is exactly about how all the life we see around us came about. Wouldn't you? A little bit of God, and a whole lot of random chance evolution. Or do you admit of greater involvement by God along the way perhaps? What about especially those who will not allow for a God or designer? Why is there a history of evolutionists trying to jump start or spark life, if such is not part of their pursuits? What if they eventually succeed in sparking some life? Do you not think that they will then incorporate no need for God at all because of the theory of evolution? Or that many have already made that decision because of the theory of evolution.

Exploring the Connection Between Atheism And Evolution - UNBELIEVABLE ATHEIST

Learn about atheism and evolution, exploring scientific perspectives on origins. Discover how atheists view evolution as a framework for understanding life.

unbelievableatheist.com

It does. It just doesn't support the YEC revisions of Genesis. YECs suppose themselves wise enough to make scripture fit their expectations, but their thoughts are in vain.

1 Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

They could use a little humility, I think.

And the orthodox interpretation of Genesis, is that the Trinity is revealed thereby. God the father created all things in the beginning. The Spirit hovered over creation as it formed, by the Word. Jesus is revealed as the Word in scripture. It's not mere sounds articulated by a mouth; it's the Son of God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Why not just accept it God's way?

You can try this reverse child psychology on someone else. The holy scriptures do not even hint at anything even remotely like your theory of evolution, but simply and plainly states the time frame and method of creation by the word God. YEC's are not the one's revising anything. They are simply holding up the simple truths repeatedly stated in holy scripture, in contrast to the claims of evolutionists who uphold and preach that found nowhere in scripture at all, but by personal revision or interpretation. So be it.

Amo2 · Saturday at 5:00 PM

Job 33:6 said:
The evidence is one thing. But doesn't what the Bible says, matter more?

The terms tohu wa bohu, and a review of what the terms mean and how they're used, would help us answer that. When we look at scripture, we find that these terms do not suggest a lack of material existence. But rather, they say something about the condition that the object is in.

Tohu is used 20 times in the Bible.

Genesis 1:2
Deuteronomy 32:10
1 Samuel 12:21 x2
Job 6:18
Job 12:24
Job 26:7
Psalm 107:40
Isaiah 24:10
Isaiah 29:21
Isaiah 34:11
Isaiah 40:17
Isaiah 40:23
Isaiah 41:29
Isaiah 44:9
Isaiah 44:18
Isaiah 45:19
Isaiah 49:4
Isaiah 59:4 and
Jeremiah 4:23

And what we see when we review these passages are that, the term moreso relates to purpose or meaning or function, than it does an actual materialistic formlessness.

So for example:
Isaiah 40:17 ESV
[17] All the nations are as nothing before him, they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

The "nothing" here isn't saying that the nations are space-time voids of emptiness. Rather they are "nothing" in the sense of being worthless or meaningless.

Deuteronomy 32:10 ESV
[10] “He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

A desert land, in the howling waste of the wilderness.

Again, it's not empty space. It's just a place of worthless meaninglessness.

A third example:
Jeremiah 4:23-26 ESV
[23] I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light. [24] I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, and all the hills moved to and fro. [25] I looked, and behold, there was no man, and all the birds of the air had fled. [26] I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a desert, and all its cities were laid in ruins before the Lord, before his fierce anger.

Again, it's not that the earth wasn't there. God is looking down on it. There were mountains. There were birds that had fled. There was a desert, the cities were in ruin.

Again, it's not that the earth was not there. It was there. It was just meaningless, worthless. Wasteland. Nothing meaningful or productive.

So when we go back to Genesis, with this understanding of tohu in mind:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

You see, the earth is there.

It's just worthless. And God takes that worthless earth, and creates it into something good. Tohu wa bohu, formless and empty. And God takes it and gives it form (on days 1-3) and then God fills it (days 4-6) and then by the end of the 6 days, it is very good. Meaningful, purposeful, and no longer empty because it's filled with animals (and people).

So with that perspective in mind, we can then ask, what is the age of the earth in the Bible? And the answer is, the text doesn't actually say.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

When God created it, or went to create it, began to create it, it was [already] tohu wa bohu.

In the beginning in which God created the heavens and the earth, is another way some have explained this. In the beginning of God creating...

The earth was. And different translations word this differently to try to make the Hebrew make sense in English. Because Hebrew doesn't have a clean 1:1 English match.

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results

Search results for “922":

922 bohuw bo'-hoo from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.(NIV)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God [a]moved upon the face of the waters.(ASV)

1 In the beginning God ([a]Elohim) created [by forming from nothing] the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [c]formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep [primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth]. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.(AMP)

1 In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.(AMPC)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. (CJB)

1 ·In the beginning [or In the beginning when] God created [C this Hebrew verb is used only when God is the one creating] the ·sky [heavens] and the earth. 2 ·The [or…the] earth ·had no form and was empty [or was a formless void]. Darkness covered the ·ocean [deep], and ·God’s Spirit [or a mighty wind] was ·moving [hovering] over the water.(EXB)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was a [a]formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the [c]surface of the waters.(NASB)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[a] 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. (CSB)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
(DARBY)

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.(DRA)

1 God created the sky and the earth. At first, 2 the earth was completely empty. There was nothing on the earth. Darkness covered the ocean, and God’s Spirit moved over[a] the water.(ERV)

1 In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without shape and it was empty. Deep water covered the earth and everywhere was dark. The Spirit of God moved above the water.[a](EASY)

Seems pretty simple to me. The earth was without form or shape, and it was empty. There was nothing there. No globe or sphere like at present, and no life.

The Barbarian · Saturday at 5:13 PM

Amo2 said:
That is the contention of course. What does the evidence really say.

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YEC Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

The Barbarian · Saturday at 5:17 PM

Amo2 said:
Very interesting, we do not however observe rapid evolution as in from one species to another.

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES

https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article-abstract/20/4/377/5936756?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The Barbarian · Saturday at 5:40 PM

Amo2 said:
Very interesting, we do not however observe rapid evolution as in from one species to another.

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES

https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article-abstract/20/4/377/5936756?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Amo2 said:
No, you are wrong, about billions of years and supposedly simple life forms.

NO “SIMPLE” LIFE FORM EXISTS – Evolution is a Myth

Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

in less than 10 years(2035) we will have synthetic protoeukaryotes. That is a pretty good imagination. If I were an evolutionist I would imagine that whatever someone else imagines - is science fact observed in nature confirming the teaching of evolutionism

www.christianforums.com

As you know, evolution is a directly observed phenomenon. You've confused evolution and common descent, again.

Amo2 said:
Prokaryotes are the “simplest” known living organisms. Bacteria flagellum are such prokaryotes.

No. Bacterial flagella (plural of "flagellum") are organelles. They are part of some prokaryotes. They are not the simplest organelles in prokaryotes, however. Evidence shows that they evolved from simpler forms either the type III secretory apparatus or from a common ancestral structure.

Type III secretion systems: the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome - PMC

The flagellum and the injectisome are two of the most complex and fascinating bacterial nanomachines. At their core, they share a type III secretion system (T3SS), a transmembrane export complex that forms the extracellular appendages, the flagellar ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Amo2 said:
There is nothing to learn.

The mantra of the YE creationist. This is why you failed. See above.

You don't believe in the internet? Or perhaps you don't know how to measure complexity. C'mon. The simplest known living cell has 473 genes. Calculate the complexity of that cell then calculate the complexity of the internet. Let us know what you find.

Biological evolution has nothing whatever to do with the origin of the universe. They might have lied to you about that, or they could have actually been ignorant enough to think it does.

Amo2 said:
No, the simplest known living cell is not simple.

Well, we're still waiting for you to show us your numbers on the complexity of the simplest cell compared to the internet. When you you think you'll be showing us, that? Even if you understood what "complexity" actually is, you'd quickly find that cells are not close to the complexity of some things humans have produced.

Amo2 said:
For the atheistic evolutionist, one certainly does have everything to do with the other, as there is and can be no God or designer. Nothing to begin life as many theistic evolutionists believe.

And once again, you've confused evolution with the beginning of life. Evolutionary theory says nothing about how life began. Darwin supposed that God just created it. Evolutionary theory only describes how living populations changing over time. Your continued confusion on this, is why you keep running into walls.

Genesis is about God and man and our relationship. If you try to twist it into a science text, you'll be constantly misled.

Amo2 said:
Repeating bogus points that have already been addressed, doesn't make them any more true.

It's just Christian doctrine. Why not accept it God's way?

Amo2 said:
I would say that believing God started the first forms of "simple" life, and then random chance evolution took over from there up to what we see now, is exactly about how all the life we see around us came about.

That's not what evolutionary theory is about. Darwin was merely expressing his faith in God. His theory is just about how populations change, and his great discovery was that it's not random. Again, if you understood some of this, you wouldn't be having so much difficulty here.

YECs suppose themselves wise enough to make scripture fit their expectations, but their thoughts are in vain.

1 Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

They could use a little humility, I think.

And the orthodox interpretation of Genesis, is that the Trinity is revealed thereby. God the father created all things in the beginning. The Spirit hovered over creation as it formed, by the Word. Jesus is revealed as the Word in scripture. It's not mere sounds articulated by a mouth; it's the Son of God.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Why not just accept it God's way?

Amo2 said:
You can try this reverse child psychology on someone else.

Not everyone accepts God's word. But I think you should seriously consider it.

Amo2 said:
The holy scriptures do not even hint at anything even remotely like your theory of evolution

His word doesn't talk about genetics, either. For the same reason. As I pointed out to you, it's about God and man and our relationship. Why not accept His word as it is?

Job 33:6 · Saturday at 5:43 PM

Amo2 said:
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results

Search results for “922":

922 bohuw bo'-hoo from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e. (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:--emptiness, void.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.(NIV)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God [a]moved upon the face of the waters.(ASV)

1 In the beginning God ([a]Elohim) created [by forming from nothing] the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [c]formless and void or a waste and emptiness, and darkness was upon the face of the deep [primeval ocean that covered the unformed earth]. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.(AMP)

1 In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters.(AMPC)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. (CJB)

1 ·In the beginning [or In the beginning when] God created [C this Hebrew verb is used only when God is the one creating] the ·sky [heavens] and the earth. 2 ·The [or…the] earth ·had no form and was empty [or was a formless void]. Darkness covered the ·ocean [deep], and ·God’s Spirit [or a mighty wind] was ·moving [hovering] over the water.(EXB)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was a [a]formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the [c]surface of the waters.(NASB)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[a] 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. (CSB)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
(DARBY)

1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.(DRA)

1 God created the sky and the earth. At first, 2 the earth was completely empty. There was nothing on the earth. Darkness covered the ocean, and God’s Spirit moved over[a] the water.(ERV)

1 In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without shape and it was empty. Deep water covered the earth and everywhere was dark. The Spirit of God moved above the water.[a](EASY)

Seems pretty simple to me. The earth was without form or shape, and it was empty. There was nothing there. No globe or sphere like at present, and no life.

Being without form does not mean that there's nothing there, it just means that it doesn't have form.

Did you not see all the passages I just shared where the word is consistently used to describe objects that are formless, not objects that dont exist?

If I handed you a lumpy piece of clay, and I told you that it was formless, you wouldn't say " There was nothing there" because of course the clay is there, It is just without form.

And Genesis, the Earth is there.

And since the text doesn't say how long it was there before God began to create it, then YEC is completely imaginary.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

And even if it wasn't a globe and it was some awkwardly shaped mass, it's still there, aging, before God began to create it.

Job 33:6 · Saturday at 6:14 PM

And it's the same thing with bohu, or empty/void. If I handed you a vase and said "this is empty and void", that doesn't mean the vase doesn't exist and isn't aging. It just means that you need to put some water into it for it to be useful.

Hence why God creates the animals. So that it's no longer empty.

Dan1988 · 2025-06-22T01:11:19-0500

The Barbarian said:
Perhaps you don't know what circular reasoning is. We use computers, fly aircraft, heal cancers, and all rest for one reason. It works. We see it all working because theories are only theories when their predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by real results.

God gave us the ability to do just that. And that's what science does. Nothing man can do, works better for understanding the physical universe God created.

And yet it works. I suppose you could find peace with your assumptions by finding a nice cave and rejecting all the things science has taught us to do to understand and use His creation.

But it seems kind of pointless, doesn't it?

I think you have confused unproven scientific theories with scientific facts. Secular science embraces hypothetical theories as proven facts, while Christian scientists unproven theories as nonsense when they conflict with what God said about the subject.

So the choice is yours, you can place your faith in fallen man or God, but you can't have it both way as they are mutually exclusive and radically opposed.
Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water, God created science so He is the greatest scientist of all.

We should draw a line between "scientific theory" and "scientific fact". Scientific facts never change, they have been proven and they are reliable, repeatable and they always remain the same, in other words they always obey Gods order. Man can only observe Gods creation in action, man has never created a single atom or speck of dust and we are utterly unable to change a single thing about Gods order.

So with all due respect, I must reject mans wisdom and knowledge as being fundamentally flawed, because ancient technology trumps modern technology. Todays secular scientists are baffled by what the ancient scientists were able to achieve.

Dan1988 · 2025-06-22T01:40:11-0500

River Jordan said:
Uh, I am a scientist. Are you calling me and all my co-workers liars?

Do you think you could do my job better than me?

I wouldn't call you or your co-workers liars, but I'd say that you've been mislead and misinformed so you may unwittingly be making false claims.

I don't know what you do, but I do know that you'd spend most of your time performing mundane experiments, which doesn't take any special skills to perform and most normal people could easily be trained to do.

I do know that secular scientists have never invented or created anything, all you can do is perform experiments and log the data you collected, so industries can use that data to manufacture trinkets.

Job 33:6 · 2025-06-22T05:36:31-0500

Dan1988 said:
I wouldn't call you or your co-workers liars, but I'd say that you've been mislead and misinformed so you may unwittingly be making false claims.

I don't know what you do, but I do know that you'd spend most of your time performing mundane experiments, which doesn't take any special skills to perform and most normal people could easily be trained to do.

I do know that secular scientists have never invented or created anything, all you can do is perform experiments and log the data you collected, so industries can use that data to manufacture trinkets.

Am I a liar too? Let's see:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The Bible doesn't say how long the earth was formless before God began to create it.

2PhiloVoid · 2025-06-22T07:11:58-0500

Dan1988 said:
I think you have confused unproven scientific theories with scientific facts. Secular science embraces hypothetical theories as proven facts, while Christian scientists unproven theories as nonsense when they conflict with what God said about the subject.

So the choice is yours, you can place your faith in fallen man or God, but you can't have it both way as they are mutually exclusive and radically opposed.
Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water, God created science so He is the greatest scientist of all.

We should draw a line between "scientific theory" and "scientific fact". Scientific facts never change, they have been proven and they are reliable, repeatable and they always remain the same, in other words they always obey Gods order. Man can only observe Gods creation in action, man has never created a single atom or speck of dust and we are utterly unable to change a single thing about Gods order.

So with all due respect, I must reject mans wisdom and knowledge as being fundamentally flawed, because ancient technology trumps modern technology. Todays secular scientists are baffled by what the ancient scientists were able to achieve.

I have it both ways, and what's more, I will continue to have it "both ways." Today, tomorrow, and the next day.

And why do I have it both ways? Because academically speaking, I know the difference between the denotation of scientific thinking (and theory) and that of biblical prophetic literature. These are not the same thing and have little overlap, and I know this because ..........................

[Notice, too, I said the above without disparaging your own faith in Christ or insinuating that you're somehow less than Christian if you disagree with me.

]

The Barbarian · 2025-06-22T08:40:16-0500

Dan1988 said:
I think you have confused unproven scientific theories with scientific facts.

I taught philosophy of science. What you fail to see is that theories only qualify as theories after their predictions are repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Facts, in other words. And theories are never "proven." Logical certainty is not part of science. We merely gather enough evidence to make dissent unreasonable.

Dan1988 said:
Secular science embraces hypothetical theories as proven facts

No, you're confused about these terms. An hypothesis is an explanation for an observed phenomenon. It is based on past experience, but is not considered a theory until it's been repeatedly confirmed by facts. Would you like some examples?

Dan1988 said:
while Christian scientists unproven theories as nonsense when they conflict with what God said about the subject.

Unless you mean the religion of Christian Science, you're confused about that, too. And you seem confused between God's word, and some people who have presumed to speak for God. You interpretation of His word is not His word.

Dan1988 said:
We should draw a line between "scientific theory" and "scientific fact".

By middle school, students know the difference. See my comments above. Let's look at a scientific fact.
It is a fact that from the Earth, planets undergo "retrograde motion", in which planets sometimes appear to reverse direction briefly before resuming forward motion. It makes no sense in terms of a geocentric theory, so scientists of the time hypothesized "epicycles", in which could account for the apparent change in motion. It worked, sort of. Later, when it was realized that the Sun was at the center of the system, the hypothesis was falsified. And eventually, the predictions of the Heliocentric theory were confirmed one after the other,and the Geocentric theory was abandoned. Do you now see the relationship between facts and theories in science?

Dan1988 said:
I do know that secular scientists have never invented or created anything

Only God truly creates, but of course scientists have invented many, many things. The smartphone, for example. The first workable digital computer and later the first electronic computer. How many would you like to see?

Dan1988 said:
all you can do is perform experiments and log the data you collected,

Turns out, that works pretty well. It's what Nikola Tesla did. Want a list of things he invented?

6,000 Years?

Well-Known Member

void​

Active Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Thomas Huxley​

Well-Known Member

Round and round we'll go!

Active Member

NO “SIMPLE” LIFE FORM EXISTS​

Active Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES​

Crabby Old White Guy

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES​

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Round and round we'll go!

Crabby Old White Guy

Similar threads

void

Thomas Huxley

NO “SIMPLE” LIFE FORM EXISTS

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES

DROSOPHILA MIRANDA, A NEW SPECIES