DNA: Mutations, Versatility and Probability

[Buzzard3]

And Exodus clearly says that the creation of the planet was included within those 6 days.

If "earth" in Exodus 20:11 is the planet earth, why does that verse mention "the sea" as well? There should be no need to mention "the sea" because the planet earth includes the sea.

And re Genesis 1, on which of the "six days" does God say "Let there be a planet earth".

Nowhere in scripture is there any indication of some kind of pre-Adimite world. It simply isn't there, meaning its made up because you want it to be there.

Incorrect. I would rather believe in a literal interpretation ... but I don't because science has demonstrated that a literal interpretation is not reality.
.

 

[Job 33:6]

If "earth" in Exodus 20:11 is the planet earth, why does that verse mention "the sea" as well? There should be no need to mention "the sea" because the planet earth includes the sea.

And re Genesis 1, on which of the "six days" does God say "Let there be a planet earth".

Incorrect. I would rather believe in a literal interpretation ... but I don't because science has demonstrated that a literal interpretation is not reality.
.

I tend to wonder what YECs think the windows of heaven are in Genesis that open to let flood waters through, then close at the end of the flood.

Maybe extra dimensional portals in space?

 

[Buzzard3]

I tend to wonder what YECs think the windows of heaven are in Genesis that open to let flood waters through, then close at the end of the flood.

Maybe extra dimensional portals in space?

What troubles me most about YECs is that many of them exhibit cult-like symptoms. It's often impossible to reason with them or get them to acknowledge even the smallest flaw in their arguments.

 

[Buzzard3]

I tend to wonder what YECs think the windows of heaven are in Genesis that open to let flood waters through, then close at the end of the flood.

Maybe extra dimensional portals in space?

I think even YECs would agree that the book of Revelation, for example, is loaded with symbolic language, yet they insist that the first few chapters of Genesis are 100% literal.

 

[coffee4u]

If "earth" in Exodus 20:11 is the planet earth, why does that verse mention "the sea" as well? There should be no need to mention "the sea" because the planet earth includes the sea.

And re Genesis 1, on which of the "six days" does God say "Let there be a planet earth".

Incorrect. I would rather believe in a literal interpretation ... but I don't because science has demonstrated that a literal interpretation is not reality.
.

Science only has the fallen world to look at not the created world, you are giving far too much credit to fallen mankind, probably atheistic mankind.
I would trust evolutionary 'science' which is not actually science as far as I could toss it.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Can't experiment or observe what isn't here.

If you look assumptions are used in every method you will see connected to evolution. Secular science itself calls them assumptions. You don't even have to look at creation science articles.
Radiometric Dating - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Radiocarbon dating relies on the assumption that organic or inorganic materials were in equilibrium with the production of 14C in the atmosphere (Jull, 2018), and that the 14C in the organism will decay, converting 14C back to 14N through beta decay, following the death of the organism.

Assumption: Cambridge Dictionary

a willingness to accept something as true without question or proof

Their assumptions are wrong, its that simple. I have no trouble tossing it aside as easily as yesterdays trash because I know God is to be trusted, which means his word is to be trusted, not reinterpreted because some man with a PHD claims something contrary to it. They are wrong because their world view begins and ends with their strongly held faith-yes faith- in evolution.

 

[Buzzard3]

"Radiocarbon dating relies on the assumption that organic or inorganic materials were in equilibrium with the production of 14C in the atmosphere (Jull, 2018), and that the 14C in the organism will decay, converting 14C back to 14N through beta decay, following the death of the organism."

You can criticize atomic dating techniques all you like, but it doesn't help your cause. Even as long ago as the 18th century - long before atomic science (and long before Darwin) - geologists were beginning to realize that the evidence pointed to life on earth having existed for perhaps millions of years.

Btw, you didn't answer my question, so I'll try again:
In Genesis 1, on which of the "six days" did God say "Let there be a planet earth".

 

[Job 33:6]

Science only has the fallen world to look at not the created world, you are giving far too much credit to fallen mankind, probably atheistic mankind.
I would trust evolutionary 'science' which is not actually science as far as I could toss it.

Can't experiment or observe what isn't here.

If you look assumptions are used in every method you will see connected to evolution. Secular science itself calls them assumptions. You don't even have to look at creation science articles.
Radiometric Dating - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics


Assumption: Cambridge Dictionary


Their assumptions are wrong, its that simple. I have no trouble tossing it aside as easily as yesterdays trash because I know God is to be trusted, which means his word is to be trusted, not reinterpreted because some man with a PHD claims something contrary to it. They are wrong because their world view begins and ends with their strongly held faith-yes faith- in evolution.

More on Radiometric Dating

 

[coffee4u]

You can criticize atomic dating techniques all you like, but it doesn't help your cause. Even as long ago as the 18th century - long before atomic science (and long before Darwin) - geologists were beginning to realize that the evidence pointed to life on earth having existed for perhaps millions of years.

I just grabbed that as one example, every area that touches on evolution and long ages is based on assumptions.
Is an assumptions proof? No it is not.
If a foundation is faulty, everything built upon it is also faulty.

Btw, you didn't answer my question, so I'll try again:
In Genesis 1, on which of the "six days" did God say "Let there be a planet earth".

Scripture interprets scripture. I am sure you have heard of that. That is how the Bible should be studied.
Scripture Interprets Scripture: The Role of Theology in Biblical Interpretation
On any topic, you never take just one scripture (unless it is the only scripture on a topic), you take all the scriptures on a topic so that you get the full picture.
Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Is a very generalized scripture.

Exodus 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day
Adds another layer to the picture by including the heavens and the earth within the 6 days.

Exodus 31:17
It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
Reiterates and confirms the previous scripture.

Now if you want to make some other claim about those verses such as "this was a previous creation" then you need additional scripture confirming and backing up that there was a previous creation.
If you have no scripture to confirm what you just said than all you have is your own opinion. This is how the Jehovah Witnesses came to say that the star over Bethlehem when Jesus was born was Satan. They have no scriptural back up for that statement it's just someones idea. Which is why any idea that can't be backed up by scripture is dangerous. That is not how scripture is studied and doctrine formulated. This is why churches had councils and statements like the Nicene Creed.

 

[Buzzard3]

I just grabbed that as one example, every area that touches on evolution and long ages is based on assumptions.
Is an assumptions proof? No it is not.
If a foundation is faulty, everything built upon it is also faulty.

I recommend you read a short article written by Glenn Morton, a Christian geophysicist: "Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism" (published at peacefulscience.org).


Here is some of what the article has to say regarding how out of touch YECs are with scientific reality:


"Morton then said that he had hired (on behalf of the oil company he worked for) several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis."


Morton says:

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true.


I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”


That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’

A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.


One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him."

Exodus 20

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day

The planet earth includes the sea, so why does this verse say "the earth" AND "the sea"? That's a tautology.

Exodus 31:17

It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

The "heaven" in that verse refers to the earth's atmosphere, called "heaven" in Gen 1:7-8 ...

"And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament HEAVEN".


The "earth" in Exd 31:17 refers to the dry land created in Gen 1:10 ...
"God called the dry land EARTH" (emphasis mine throughout)

 

[coffee4u]

I recommend you read a short article written by Glenn Morton, a Christian geophysicist: "Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism" (published at peacefulscience.org).


Here is some of what the article has to say regarding how out of touch YECs are with scientific reality:


"Morton then said that he had hired (on behalf of the oil company he worked for) several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis."


Morton says:

"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true.


I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”


That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’

A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either.


One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him."



The planet earth includes the sea, so why does this verse say "the earth" AND "the sea"? That's a tautology.



The "heaven" in that verse refers to the earth's atmosphere, called "heaven" in Gen 1:7-8 ...

"And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament HEAVEN".


The "earth" in Exd 31:17 refers to the dry land created in Gen 1:10 ...
"God called the dry land EARTH" (emphasis mine throughout)

You haven't understood a thing I said, you are still going by evidence and so is he. It isn't about science. Creation scientists are under the same disadvantage as secular science is, it only has the same fallen world to work with.

I believe in 6 day creation regardless of evidence either way. You don't seem to have grasped that concept. I believe in creation the same way I believe in Jesus.
While science on both sides has a bunch of facts (a fossil is a fact) and a bunch of assumed facts (dating methods) what they come up with is a story woven around the facts.
God said how he created and that he did so over 6 days, this is why I believe in 6 days.

But when the actual facts are looked at, before any stories are applied to them, the arguments for evolution are not convincing. There is no proof of 1 cell coming to life, of changes occurring to turn it into a fish, then an amphibian then a land creature. No evidence showing dinosaurs became birds or apes became people. Those missing links are missing. It is a clever story woven around the facts and other stories such as catastrophe can just as easily be woven around them and frankly not only match up with what is found better but match up to the Bible more closely.

 

[Buzzard3]

I just grabbed that as one example, every area that touches on evolution and long ages is based on assumptions.

Is an assumptions proof? No it is not.

If a foundation is faulty, everything built upon it is also faulty.

Well may you speak of assumptions, because your whole argument is based on the assumption that the Genesis creation account is literal and scientific.

 

[Buzzard3]

But when the actual facts are looked at, before any stories are applied to them, the arguments for evolution are not convincing. There is no proof of 1 cell coming to life, of changes occurring to turn it into a fish, then an amphibian then a land creature. No evidence showing dinosaurs became birds or apes became people. Those missing links are missing. It is a clever story woven around the facts and other stories such as catastrophe can just as easily be woven around them and frankly not only match up with what is found better but match up to the Bible more closely.

Attack evolution all you like ... I don't accept it either, so I'm not going to defend that theory.

However I do accept the scientific evidence that suggests life existed on earth for a very very long time before Adam was created.

 

[coffee4u]

Well may you speak of assumptions, because your whole argument is based on the assumption that the Genesis creation account is literal and scientific.

Again:
Science is mans attempt to understand the world
Scripture is God sharing truth with us.

Genesis is literal.

 

[coffee4u]

Attack evolution all you like ... I don't accept it either, so I'm not going to defend that theory.

However I do accept the scientific evidence that suggests life existed on earth for a very very long time before Adam was created.

So long as you realize all those long age dates are based on assumptions.
Cambridge Dictionary
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[coffee4u]

The fossil is PROOF that life existed long before Adam was created.

Fossils prove that creatures died and were buried fast, so we can know that the correct conditions were there to form a fossil, the fossils themselves don't come with age tags.

The age is something that mankind has assigned to them.
When you look at how those ages were assigned, this is where the assumptions come into play. The ages are only as correct as the assumptions those tests are based upon are correct. But who says the assumptions are correct? By dictionary definition assumptions are not proof! It is believed to be true. What is belief, if not faith?
Cambridge Dictionary
Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
The ages of fossils are believed to be true by faith not proof. Faith is not scientific proof.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossils prove that creatures died and were buried fast, so we can know that the correct conditions were there to form a fossil, the fossils themselves don't come with age tags.

The age is something that mankind has assigned to them.
When you look at how those ages were assigned, this is where the assumptions come into play. The ages are only as correct as the assumptions those tests are based upon are correct. But who says the assumptions are correct? By dictionary definition assumptions are not proof! It is believed to be true. What is belief, if not faith?
Cambridge Dictionary
Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
The ages of fossils are believed to be true by faith not proof. Faith is not scientific proof.

No, fossils demonstrate in most cases, slow burial, such as in regenerative growth of tree fossils.

See here for details and more:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEje1puXuKeMdjn4i-ext68l0_1IYzlw_

 

[Buzzard3]

Genesis is literal

Easy to say, but impossible to prove. For example, it would be utterly impossible for anyone to prove that God created the earth and all life in six literal days.
You believe Genesis is literal, but your belief is based on nothing more than an assumption (so your criticism of science making assumptions rings a bit hollow)..


Furthermore, as former YEC, Glenn Morton, pointed out (see post 109), after becoming a geophysicist he discovered that NONE of the YEC science he'd been taught turned out to be true. That doesn't say much for the credibility of YEC claims.

But feel free to believe in a young earth - it's not a sin. I accept the Biblical creation verses as theological truth, but not as scientific truth.

 

[Buzzard3]

Fossils prove that creatures died and were buried fast, so we can know that the correct conditions were there to form a fossil, the fossils themselves don't come with age tags.

The age is something that mankind has assigned to them.
When you look at how those ages were assigned, this is where the assumptions come into play. The ages are only as correct as the assumptions those tests are based upon are correct. But who says the assumptions are correct? By dictionary definition assumptions are not proof! It is believed to be true. What is belief, if not faith?
Cambridge Dictionary
Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
The ages of fossils are believed to be true by faith not proof. Faith is not scientific proof.

Without attempting to estimate the age of fossils, it is still reasonable to assume that life on earth existed before Adam (I wish to retract my fossil record "proof" comment in post 115). This reasonable assumption is based on the fact that no evidence of human life has ever been found in the same geological strata as dinosaurs, for example ... or trilobites.
Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that dinosaurs and trilobites (along with countless other animals) existed before human beings.

Conversely, it would be decidedly UNREASONABLE to conclude from fossil evidence that humans, dinosaurs and trilobites existed at the same time.