BioLogos Irony (YEC/OEC)

Faith & Science Conversation
118

Really, wow. I thought for sure you were pulling one of these https://youtu.be/rLDgQg6bq7o. And using a bunch of fake calculations and made up terms to show how stupid my theory was. That math is way above my head, but sorry for the mis-interpretations and kudus for that knowledge, but still even further above my head than some of those evolutionary terms.

Would you be able to work that formula out backwards and plug in 13.7 billions years and what would it give in place of that 6000 value?

Ok, I understand the ring species and speciation concept now…I think. So with a mountain cline, the lizard at the bottom of a mountain is a magenta species, then the first quarter mountain, the condition/environment changes so the lizards there are adapting and purple. And half way, same thing, so blue lizards, and at the top quarter, bark green lizards, and at the top, there is a light green lizards. The purple and magenta can interbreed, and the light green and dark can interbreed. But the light green and agents won’t be able to interbreed. Though in the mountain cline which is linear, they will never meet, so will never know they can’t interbreed, but in the ring cline, these costal species can and do meet (light green and magenta), but they still can’t interbreed.

But they are still lizards, or birds with the ring species. This still seems like the same type to me.

And if I understand right, do we have any evidence of this occurring enough times for a fish to spectate and grow arms and turn into a frog?

Like the wiki article said. “if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection then the ring species’ distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.”

So if I am correct, we have no link( referred to as the missing link) that connect a type to another type. E. We have magenta fish and light green frogs, but we are missing the purple, blue and dark green species right? This is a theory to reconcile the observable micro evolution, and say this proves macro evolution. And hide it behind the fact that it’s a really long time 4.5 billion years. Being that modern man only lived 100,000 at lion is so unfathomable, making it seem plausible.

How long is the Larus gulls sceciation measured to have taken place. Because maybe in DNA that is a great change, but in the end result is really not THAT different. From a herring gull to a black-backed gull is such a minute change.

I just think it is still too large of a leap to go from a magenta fish to a light green fish, and a light green fish to a yellow frog (or whatever fish “turned” into.

I can’t list all of the types/kinds of animals. But a type or kind is for example, a canine, and a species would be a wolf, a beagle, Dalmatian maybe even a fox. Feline- lion, house cat, tiger, panther. Equine- horse, donkey, zebra, impala.

That is what I understand to be micro-evolution. But to make the jump from sea creatures only, to half sea and half land, to land creatures only. Or an even larger leap, from a few cells of and bacteria to a to an animal/fish etc.

Speciation I can get on board with. But the evolutionary theory that we evolved massive leaps in kinds/types…I don’t see enough evidence for that, nor does it sound that logical, not does it sound like interpretation error or literature type could sound remotely like that.

I can even see how a pakicetus could evolve to become a whale over 50 million years.

Just like you probably couldn’t fit every animal on the ark, but if you got the types, it wouldn’t be a problem, and afterwords when they go to different environments, they speciate to give us what we have today, some 3000- 4000 years later. Or is that not enough time for speciation to occur?

119

Part of the awkwardness of this model is that the oldest writings of scripture, like the book of Job for example describe creatures exactly in the modern sense besides a few debatable ones that may have gone extinct (like Behemoth/Leviathan). For example,

Or an entire archive of articles on hyper speciation required by the YEC model:

2 Likes
121

Hmmm, some good points there, thanks.

The thing about it is, that evolution still fits my time warp theory perfectly. And I probably mentally cross the fence at times. It just has other holes/unexplainable challenges in it that bring me back to the other side.

But I that is why I think evolution should be its own thread, original purpose of this thread was the time warp theory, which again, has no beef with evolution.

1 Like
122

Feel free to start a new thread, but could you summarize again for me:

  1. what do you mean by time warp? The number of times I’ve seen Christians abuse Special Relativity has been too much to count

  2. what kind of holes/challenges do you mean? All theories will always have some gaps. But what is most important is not whether gaps exist, because they always will but whether the idea explains the non-gaps well which evolution has done an amazing job at

1 Like
123

Oh my, I can try to sum it up.

Basically God is outside of time, so time is whatever he wants it to be. So He assigned the time of 7 days to creation. However, from the time that we know and our reference, the universe was created in 13.7 billion years.

Like I can watch a tree grow over 5 years, in a 5 min time lapse. God “watched” the universe be created in 5 min, though, it grew over 5 years. Or, God created the universe in 7 days, though it grew in 13.7 billion years.

So every Big Bang event that scientist speak of of evolution happened as we measure it, same as EC believes, but it also only took a literal 7 days.

Like if a human was sitting next to God watching this happen, they would see plants whizzing around and colliding and explosions and God would be like superman or the flash when a bullet is fired where it is in super slow motion, able to effect the most minute details.

Some here called it time warp for lack of better term, I think time lapse theory sounds closer.

If want to believe in the genesis account not being literal, that makes sense in so many areas. But then you have parts like. Putting Adam to sleep to take a rib. If this was figurative or symbolic, why write a completely unnecessary detail like that.

Or if 900 some years is symbolic of age, they why set a limit on it later to 120 years.

There are so many (what seems to be) unnecessary details placed in there.

That is like saying " Pharos heart was hardened, so they hooked him up to a blood circulation machine" Using a symbolic thing, and then assigning literal detail to it confuses.

In Gen 6, if the flood was just a story or used hyperbole, I think it would be written " God told Noah to build an ark and to bring 2 of every animal". That is a story about what God told them to do and I could take that to be a hyperbole.
But it says " the Lord said to Noah, you do this, this will happen" and puts it in quotes, as if this is what God said. You dont tell a story with quotes from someone and add hyperbole within he quotes. At least in this literary society. Maybe there’s was different?

124

You make it sound that if something isn’t literal history it has no purpose in the narrative. I don’t think that is how the original audience would have approached things at all. Here are two old threads with some thoughts on the Adam’s rib thing, because I don’t have time at the moment to re-type all the things I and others said in those threads.

125

Thanks, that is reasonable to me. What about the flood ( as I added into my post above.)

Why change someone’s quotes?

Or the reason for a 120 limit? If ages were symbolic?

I should start a thread were I can lob one down and y’all can knock it out of the park and lob another one and you might just have a global to regional flood and evolutionary ‘convert’.

1 Like
126

Yes, pick your favorite and start a new thread. :slight_smile:

1 Like
127

You are reading it in English. I don’t believe Hebrew has the same concept of “quotes.” One of the regulars that knows Hebrew can correct me if I am wrong. In looking in an interlinear I noticed there were no quote marks.

1 Like
128

That’s pretty much the opposite meaning of ‘literal’. A ‘subjective’ 7 days would be a better suggestion. Still, to a being outside of time, I suspect any experience of time passing would be a nonsensical concept.

129

@still_learning

  1. Adding ornamental detail is exactly what you would expect with a story that people would otherwise conclude is Not a true story.

  2. As for the rib story, there Jewish interpreters who think the answer is obvious: the rib story provides an etymological explanation for human anatomy!

A. Human males are known to be one of the few (only?) Group to not have a bone reinforcement for their masculine anatomy.

B. The word for Rib is obscure in that it can refer to a number of human parts.

1 Like
130

They aren’t using quartz vibrations. You can read more about cesium atomic clocks here. These clocks can only tick at one speed in the conditions they are kept. You can’t just invoke some mystery factor that happens to change clocks exactly in keeping with Einstein’s equations without some evidence to back it up. Until such evidence is presented, the accuracy of these clocks stands.[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
Sure one could argue anything…but why 5min? My time warp theory isn’t based on a random, " what if". It’s based on the other parallel uses of 7 days in the Bible and he literal interpretation of the genesis account.
[/quote]

Where is the evidence to back it?[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
Surely you don’t believe that do you? Gravity doesn’t make/effect time. Do those on the I.S.S age slower or not at all due to the lack of gravity?
Gravity could effect the way we measure time…like if we used an hourglass to measure time, sure. But it can’t/doesn’t effect time of happening.
[/quote]

Incredulity is not much of an argument. Another example is the GPS network of satellites. They have to constantly update the clocks on these satellites because they tick at a different rate than clocks on Earth, and that is due to their distance from Earth’s center of gravity. We know that time ticks at different rates depending on their position in a gravity well because we can measure those differences.

Also, no one is saying that people on the ISS don’t age. Their clocks are only ticking at a very slightly faster rate, something like nanoseconds per day. The same happens when you take a plane ride at high altitude, as was shown in the Hafele-Keating experiments which have been confirmed numerous times with modern technology.[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
During. Constant conditions, you are correct, they “tick” /are measured at one speed/rate. But if you changed certain conditions, that rate would change.
[/quote]

What conditions are those, and where is your evidence that those conditions were changed in the experiments?[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
So if the earth sped up and moved sun twice as fast…we wouldn’t age any faster. Sure our number age would go higher, but we would all live to 160 as opposed to 80. The time of happening doesn’t change, just the way we measure it. I believe the earth circled the sun 4.5 billion times in a few days according to the time of happening. Or that furthest galaxy/star that we see and measure red shift etc. that star actually travelled for us at at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years in a few days of happening.
[/quote]

The laws of physics allows planets to orbit the Sun at different speeds. It doesn’t allow cesium clocks to tick at different rates. You are comparing apples and oranges.[quote=“still_learning, post:112, topic:36495”]
I believe the earth circled the sun 4.5 billion times in a few days according to the time of happening. Or that furthest galaxy/star that we see and measure red shift etc. that star actually travelled for us at at the speed of light for 13.7 billion years in a few days of happening.
[/quote]

You are free to believe whatever you want, but reality is not forced to conform to your beliefs.

131

V[quote=“Bill_II, post:127, topic:36495”]
You are reading it in English. I don’t believe Hebrew has the same concept of “quotes.” One of the regulars that knows Hebrew can correct me if I am wrong. In looking in an interlinear I noticed there were no quote marks.
[/quote]

Their writings might not have had quotations in it. But I’m sure they understood that one could quote someone or write what someone else says and the importance of not distorting or changing what God told them to write. They say " the Lord says…". Sounds a lot like quotes, whether they actually used quotes or not.

True, somewhat subjective…as all time is subjective or relative…like I have been saying. When I say literal, I mean in the relative/subjective sense that days occur to humans today. I agree time is a nonsensical concept to God, but He wrote the Bible and made the universe for us humans, and thus created a subjective time for us.

I actually have grown in this area. I was thinking to myself, how would I write about a flood if I was telling a story. If I just said, a big boat…well how big, elephant size, football field size etc. now that I know we are talking football field size, I know you meant big, even if that used measurements to make a figure of speech. Obviuolsy they didn’t have football fields back then. Like if I was so hungry I could eat a horse…if you never saw a horse I would say, I was so hungry, I could eat a 7’ long by 6’ tall hunk of meat. Details make the story to emphasize how hungry I was.

So I am starting to look at some stories differently. Some unnecessary details become necessary for the story telling. But still some don’t, like limiting 120 days. I’ll open a new thread for that one.

The problem with usuing details to tell a story theory…is that you run yourself into the other biologos theory that is ruined by saying God is not deceptive. Where biologos believes that the earth could be ~5000 years old old 13.7 billion years of “false history” as you call it planted, which is ruled out because God is not deceptive.

But why is it deceptive for God to " plant false history" to tell a story, but it isn’t for man to " plant false details?

Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying females have this? Or what other animals? Muscles help or bones move, don’t reinforce, and fat cushions them, skin protects them. I’m not sure I know what you mean when you say reinforce them?

Not to measure time…but they are used in the atomic clocks, the quartz oscillators.

I am not debating the accuracy of atomic clocks it is an extremely accurate MEASUREMENT of time. But that is all it is doing, like an hourglass, measuring time. We just discovered that hour glasses measurements can be manipulated by different gravity, and we discovered a factor ( speed ) that changes the measurements of the atomic clock.

I know this, this proves what I am saying. So do Hafele-Keating experiments.

There are many many factors that our age is a measurement of and so many can be manipulated. The theory of relativity says basically, the faster you go, the slower time goes. The time of happening doesn’t slow, just the time measurement that you are relative to. Atomic clock measurements slow, your aging slows, every measurement we know of slows, effectively time is slowing…but not the time of happening.

If you traveled a year at 95% speed of light, you would age 1 year, but the people of earth would have aged 3.2 years. 3.2 years is the time of happening.

To extrapolate this to my theory. God created the universe in 3.2 years, but in the time of happening, it only took 1 year. Or 13.7 billion years, it 7 days.

Again, not using the proper terminology from my first post has confused this some I believe. I should have used relative time and happening time from the beginning.

The reason an atomic clock moving faster ticks slower is because for it, time is slowing down, but it is really just the atoms slowing down, as it measures atomic oscillations. But the eaths revolutions around the sun didn’t slow, the time of happening didn’t slow, just the relative time to the object at that speed. Our time is relative to speed, and since on earth, we are basically all moving at the same speed, our time is the same. But even if you traveled 99% the speed of light, and relative time moved slower for you, the time of happening doesn’t change.

We are subject to a relative time, as our planet, our solar system, and even our galaxy is moving at a speed. But God is outside of time and relatively, He is in the realm of time of happening. The beginning happened, the creation of the universe happened regardless of the earth revolving around the sun, regard
Less of an hour glass sands of time falling, regardless of a quartz oscillating, regardless of a cesium atom oscillating with a quartz oscillation feedback, time happens, history happened.

I know it is sci-fi, but you will never be able to time travel. You can go into the further possibly…by traveling fast enough that your relative time slows and when you stop the future is here, but you can never go back into the past, it happened. I would even guess that God cannot go into the past. But since He is outside of time and has no relative speed, And being all knowing, could have manipulated the past (when the past was present) to get the future outcomes He wanted. He can slow and probably stop time, but I don’t think He can affect the past or change the time of happening. I see plenty of evidence of Him manipulating relative time, but not one of Him changing the time of happening or the past. Relative time as we know it began when In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and all the laws of physics and relativity and energy as we know them today.

I absolutely agree, it is just my time lapse theory. I am fine if you don’t believe in my theory. What I am more trying to explain is that you are not understanding my theory. I am debating you that time is relative and that atomic clocks measuremeasure relative time, not time of happening. Hafele-Keating experiments Prove that.

But again sorry, that is probably my fault for not using proper terminology to begin with.

132

What factors are changing the rate at which atomic clocks tick?[quote=“still_learning, post:131, topic:36495”]
The theory of relativity says basically, the faster you go, the slower time goes.
[/quote]

That is false. If you got in a rocket ship and sped up to 0.5 times the speed of light you would not measure any change in the passage of time while on the ship.[quote=“still_learning, post:131, topic:36495”]
To extrapolate this to my theory. God created the universe in 3.2 years, but in the time of happening, it only took 1 year. Or 13.7 billion years, it 7 days.
[/quote]

I still don’t see how this relates to relativity. If you accelerate the Earth then it will be younger than the rest of the universe. However, the Earth appears to be older, not younger, according to your model.[quote=“still_learning, post:131, topic:36495”]
The reason an atomic clock moving faster ticks slower is because for it, time is slowing down, but it is really just the atoms slowing down, as it measures atomic oscillations.
[/quote]

You only see a difference in the passage of time between frames of reference, not within a frame of reference.

1 Like
133

That was the standard way of saying “What I am about to tell you comes with the Lord’s authority”. Doesn’t mean they quote God verbatim. And if you go back to what we were talking about originally you will notice there is no “Thus says the Lord” in sight.

The passage is time is different when measured in different frames of reference. Atomic clocks measure the passage of time in their frame of reference. Are you aware of the twin paradox? There are two twins. One leaves on a space ship that can travel at .5 c. When the ship returns the twin left on earth has aged more than the twin on the space ship. Each twin experienced a different passage of time due to the two different frames of reference.

For your theory what are the frames of reference and how fast are they moving relative to each other? The passage of time is only different if the frames are moving relative to each other.

134

It’s called the os penis aka penis bone, baculum, etc. George is right; human males don’t have that bone but many animals do, such as dogs. (I took animal Anatomy and Physiology.)

135

Oh my goodness…

I have just sent you a PM in order to provide you enough of the necessary details for you to understand my references.

I refuse to post a Wiki link on this topic… for even the intro section of the Wiki text is too much for my fragile constitution to banter around within these hallowed halls…

I will leave it to the seriously curious to look up the term “baculum” for themselves.

[ @beaglelady, I see that not only was I too bashful, but 2 hours late, in my posting. Well done. ]

2 Likes
136

Gen 6:13-21 God says to Noah. And I it is quotes…that sounds to me like another way of saying “thus says the Lord”. Or gen 7:1-4 and the Lord said to Noah.

How is that not interpreted as a direct quote from God? although maybe not verbatim, because it wasn’t written down seconds later. But paraphrased to convey the original meaning.

I’m getting at that a story teller to tell a story could say " I built it 200 cubits by 500… to tell a story and add detail. But this isn’t some made up detail for a story, it is a quote/paraphrase from God.

Exactly. That is what I have been saying. But they all have a frame of reference. God does not have a frame of reference… it happening time still happens to God, we have no evidence that He can go back in time or time if happening. If I. Happening time it took 7 days, but in the realm of our universe, the frame of reference was 13.7 billion years, the it was.

Exactly what I have been trying to explain. Time is relative to you frame of reference. And God being the twin outside of reference and all of the universe being inside the frame of reference. Like when I am watching a tree grow on YouTube, I am outside of that frame of reference, and it takes me 5 min to watch. But to the tree inside if that frame of reference, it takes 5 years to grow. Or if I watch a time lapse of the universe cig, it takes me 7 min to watch, but it covers 13.7 billion years.

Exactly, like a car going 50mph and another one going 100 mph. Depending on which car you are in, you are moving 50mph faster or slower than each other. But to the observer in a helicopter hovering, you are going 50 and 100. But if the helicopter wants to fly at 50 mph, then one car’s velocity is 0, and the other is 50. The person in the helicopter can go backwards, and make both velocities faster. God being in the helicopter can go at whatever velocity He wants to give the velocities of the cars…bad analogy, but I think you know what I mean.

He created what He created, and it took Him time of happening to create it, but no associated time with reference to us or our laws of physics. But knowing our laws of physics, since He created them for us, wanted to have it to have only taken Him 7 days, so that is the relative time He assigned it to have taken Him in the time if happening. So if there was a human observer next to God that was inside of our human time reference (though God was still outside of this reference though next to man) that human would be watching a time lapse of insanely fast collisions and explosions and planets forming in seconds and the earth (once formed) spinning around the sun at so fast it would have looked like a solid ring.

That is the time lapse theory.

I had no clue some Jews believed this… but @Christy already satisfied an explanation for me.

Speed. This is what the Hafele-Keaton’s experiments showed…

No…that’s true… Time dilution

You are still misunderstanding my theory. I was using speed to slow slow time time to show you time is al relative to its frame of reference. But speed is a function of distance over time. If you speed up time, than the speed remains constant. In the example above, the person next to God watching the creation of the universe.Time lapse God is quicksilver in this. He spends a great amount of time creating the universe 13.7 billion years). But only 7 days passes to this being who can control time references. BUT, this being can’t control the time of happening, if he had to travel too far, before he could get to a bullet, then the damage would be done. You can’t go back in time, or change the time of happening.

Exactly. But for the one outside that frame of reference, time is whatever they decide to base that reference off of.

137

That is just a part of the story. When a prophet wants to invoke the authority of God he always said Thus says the lord.

If it is not verbatim how can you call it a quote? A quote is supposed to be the words said.

Not sure what you were trying to say but God can in a sense go back in time. God created time and therefore exists outside of time. From our perspective He exists in an eternal now. I have said before that God’s Now is the same Now yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Ascribing the passage of time to God just doesn’t work. That is why your theory falls apart.

God is everywhere at the same time. He would be in every possible frame of reference at the same time so you can’t say He is outside of any frame of reference.

Velocity doesn’t work the same way as relativity. [quote=“still_learning, post:136, topic:36495”]
He created what He created, and it took Him time of happening to create it
[/quote]

No he created by command and it didn’t take any amount of time at all. This is why some of the earth church fathers didn’t think the 6 days were 6 literal days.

1 Like
138

He isn’t a prophet though…

That doesn’t mean he wasn’t speaking the words from God.

Apparently that is just what the English decided to do in their translations. But the quote might just mean a paraphrase, so the concept is unchanged, but a few words might be different. But numbers in a quote or paraphrase aren’t changed.

What proof or evidence do you have of this?

I agree, and have said that…I said God is outside of it reference. But not outside the time of happening. I don’t know the proper word to explain that if there is a word. But once something happens, it can’t be undone. Like if you stab someone, that is done, you stabbed them. Sure God could heal it up in seconds so it is if you didn’t, but in the truth time of happening, you did.

There are plenty of references of God manipulating the time reference, but not one that I am aware of, where God changes the past.

I agree. Where have I said different?

I am not ascribing a passage of time to God. I am saying He ascribed a passage if time to us. he wanted 7 days to pass, so it did.

Not stating that as fact…stating that in my theory, this is how it works…just to clarify.

I know they don’t…it’s an analogy I attempt to help people conceptualize…

Ok, this is what you believe. I just wouldn’t state that as fact. We are all guessing as to what this would have looked like.

Like that video showed, quicksilver ran around and did all kinds of things. But to those watching, it happened instantly.

I could picture God speaking something, and like a potter forming clay, a sculpture comes to life. And tone person next to God watching, it happened so fast, it did happen instantly.

I do think God could have made it happen instantaneously, but I don’t believe He did. I believe He wanted it to take 1 day each step, so He made it tame 1 day. And then He told us that it took 1 day.

Just like EC believes God could have created the universe in 7 days and created things as if it was old, but they don’t Believe He did.

It is just my beliefs or theory of how I think it could have happened, and it just so happens to not violate any laws of physics, it agrees/works with evolution and any other scientific finding, and it also happens to agree with the literal genesis 1 account.

I am not sayin all of genesis is literal, but I believe gen 1 was.

Just like biologos believes not all the Bible is literal, but some parts are.

Some early church fathers also though the earth was flat, and the sun moved around us…people think things and have theories. It doesn’t make them right nor give any weight to an theory.

I am not saying I am right, I just don’t think lost understand my theory first. So I can’t really defend my theory as it seems arguments are coming up that my theory doesn’t speak of.

There is the potential I am wrong, in which case i my misinterpretation of genesis, I am ascribing time to God, which I agree would not work. However if the interpretation is literal, then God would be the one ascribing time to us.