I am talking about visible evidence. Surely someone who has studied this as thoroughly as you would be aware of this physical evidence. So what do you think of the evidence?
2 Likes
So, God hit the FF>> button on the DVR and fast-forwarded through the boring part to get to the good stuff âŚ
1 Like
Now thereâs a revelation many in American could get behind
2 Likes
[They say] âWe do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.â You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.âWilliam of Conches
4 Likes
So, Victor, while you are doing all these things (your Rules #1 to #4 for understanding creation),
have you come up with thoughts on the following conundra of Creationism?:
-
Would you let the Lord of Genesis babysit your toddler, if you knew he was going to assign him or her a task - - before he explained what the task was about - - and punish the toddler severely, and all your grandchildrenâs grandchildren too, for getting it wrong?
-
Why does the Lord of Genesis count Creation in days, before there is a Sun that marks days and nights? It seems to be based on the notion (as demonstrated by the recent eclipse) that even when the sun is blocked, there is stilll significant amounts of daylight. Some ancients seemed to have the impression that daylight was not wholy dependent on the presence of the Sun. If Days 1, 2 and 3 could come and go even before there was a sun, what caused the daylight to become dark?
-
Do you concur that even after his and her sin, Adam & Eve could still have obtained immortality if the God of Genesis had let them eat of the Tree of Life?
-
Have you figured out the Firmament yet?
-
Do you agree that the property of water droplets in the air was physically different after the flood in the story of Noah, because prior to the flood, God had not yet created the rainbow as a mark of his covenant?
Thomas Kuhn, the physicist / historian of science (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) wrote: âNo natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation and criticism.â He defined the scientific paradigm as a constellation of beliefs, values, techniques shared by the members of the community. He wrote that the âscientific paradigm informs scientists what is a problem, what constitutes evidence, how to gather evidence and how to solve the problem using the techniques and definitions supplied by the paradigm.â âThe man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly.â
No verse in the Bible would have been understood with a scientific paradigm by the writer or a contemporary. Modern science did not arrive at its first principle until 1100 years after the New Testament closed. The modern scientific paradigm was constructed on this historical, first principle.
This is why visible evidence is so much more important that paradigm dependent evidence. For 12 years, Hubble, Keck and other telescopes have stared at the Hubble Deep Field. Estimates of the number of galaxies in the universe, using background light and the visible galaxies in this field, suggests at least 5 trillion galaxies. When the James Webb launches next year, with its active helium refrigerator, we should see the creation era with greater clarity. When we compare the shapes and spectra of ancient galaxies with nearby ones, we see the proof of the literal words of creation day four. What is visible, however, violates every possible scientific paradigm.
This is why we must accept the grammar of the text instead of interpretting it with science.
God never lies in word or action. What he says is what we see.
Victor
I must have missed it above. What are you talking about exactly?
What are you referring to? You mean Dark Matter or Dark Energy? Neither of those adjust the frequency of passing light.
1 Like
Visibly, all matter keeps shifting its properties throughout cosmic history, so water must have been different back then. When we compare the frequencies of an atomic clock with its reflections from hours ago (Pioneer Anomaly) even local atomic clocks are accelerating in the same direction and âdistance rateâ as the atoms in countless distant galaxies.
Combining Day 2 with Proverbs 8:28 suggests that ice clouds were placed above the spreading atmosphere (raqiya shamayim). Proverbs says the solid solid clouds were put there by the geysers of the deep. Indeed, today on Enceladus we see a hundred geysers ejecting ice dust into space as they also eject volcanic gasses. Evidently that is what continued to happen (imperfect verbs) on day two.
The rainbow is not just diffraction from water droplets. It is the image of the Sun projected through the droplets. It is always opposite the Sun. Sometimes the rainbow is down in a valley if the Sun is high behind you (such as when you sprinkle your lawn). The image of the sun always has the same angular size relative to your position. Sometimes we see a double rainbow, the outer one reversed.
When the Earth was surrounded by ice, you could not have seen a rainbow even if it did rain between Eden and the mabbul. The infrared image of the Sun would have been diffuse passing through the ice that then surrounded the Earth. Genesis uses passive verbs for the breaking open of the windows of the sky and the rupturing of sub crustal seas (tehom). Evidently, God used a natural event, probably a close planet passage, to bring about the great cataclysm. In Psalm 104, it mentions a thunderous sound as wide valleys opened up to accept the waters that stood above the mountains. Indeed, all the modern oceans have young, basaltic floors. All the ancient seas stood on thick granite basements of the worldwide continent that was evidently split by the mabbul. Marine fossils for the most part formed between Eden and the mabbul, only on the continents, when Earthâs waters stood with the land (See 2 Peter 3:3-6).
Great question. Have a nice day.
Victor
That is a bit mind changing, I never read that before, thanks, and it might be true that it is more of a poetic storyâŚhowever, it still doesnât change my view.
It is too specific and too parallel to be written off in my opinion as âjust poeticâ. If it was just poetic, it would say, and light was there, then God made the starts, then God made the earth, then ect⌠There is no poetic need or meaning to give it a first day, second day ect.
For me that is too specific to be unnecessary. Though I know in Numbers they also use specific numbers that probably arenât exact, they do round, but you canât round 1 day to be too much more than 100, or that isnât exactly rounding. And it parallels many other 7 day events of the Bible, many of which are not argued at all.
I find it interesting that everyone take it so literal when the Bible mentions 7 day events, except in Genesis.
Soley to reconcile. That is why it is my theory. Some reconcile it by their theories of interpretation, I reconcile it by my theory of âtime warpâ.[quote=âBill_II, post:53, topic:36495â]
No my argument is the writings say they are not literal history. If you take them to be literal that is your choice and it is not supported by the texts.
[/quote]
I would argue that it isnât supported, by means of parallel importance and repetitiveness.
That is a good point. However again, due to ( I donât believe anyone argues) literal 7 days occuring in many other parts of the texts, I do believe this.
I think you are confusing my theory (probably my fault). I think God created the universe in 13.7 bil yearsâŚbut since He is outside of time, He could really assign any time He wanted to it. I believe He assigned 7 days because the whole purpose of His creation is for humans, and 7 days works well for His designed/engineered beings. Much like if you engineer and engine, you know the best operating specs.
It sounds to me like God created the heavens and the earth, and all things and animals over 13.7 bil years (according to the current laws of physics as we know them). Then one day, He wanted to create humans to subdue and rule over it. Being that the entire purpose of this universe is for human, He wants 7 days to have a special meaning for us (as He uses it over and over again literally), He decided that (the one outside of time who assigns time to things) said, I am going to say 7 days.
So the 7 days isnât something that is confining by God, this is a number He chose as his âoperating specsâ of mankind. Later He changed those operating specs from ~900 years to ~120 years. In choosing this number, God made this number perfect, and anything short of it, especially a 6, an unholy number, always falling short of 7, repeatedly, like 666 (metaphor for 6âs repeating for eternity), it will never be a seven, a metaphor or symbol of anything unholy, holy being God, and unholy being anything unworthy of God.
I should open anther topic for this one, I am interested in learning more about it, but I am not even sure what Biologos believes on this, though I tried to do some reading. I have a few specific questions on this.[quote=âr_speir, post:61, topic:36495â]
T^4 = a^2 tH / 2 tCMB
[/quote]
I assume this is trolling/mocking me? But most here are far more educated than I am. If this is mocking me, I donât think that is along the lines of why this site was created nor âgracious dialogueâ, but I have a thick skin, so I donât really mind. If you are seriousâŚthan again, way above my head.
Iâm sorry, I do not understand that explanation of this entirely, however I get the reason why you are explaining it to me. But your intent behind this has brought me to rethinking my evolutionary stance, but I am trying to unde stand EC and need to open a new thread to ask a few questions.
I got that number as a ârepresentativâ number of the YEC. I am not saying as a fact, I am simply stating with the beliefs of a YEC 7 days, then you can use 4-10k years range.
Not sure if still mocking? Or if you are genuine?
Depending on different reference points, it can be. Just like we are relative to the earth, still on the couch, but relative to the sun 23,000 mph.
That is an interesting theory. I could go along with this. It marries with my other current beliefs.[quote=âgodsriddle, post:74, topic:36495â]
See Genesis 47:9 where Jacob says the days and years of the son are shorter and worse than those of the fathers.
[/quote]
This could mean many things though. Worse because more and more people becoming corrupted and having to live in a world with more corrupt people. And time being shorter because God was limiting the âgeneralâ lifespan to 120 where as the fathers were in the 900âs.
This could also be poetic to say, being born is relatively short, and something else takes a lifetime ( a long time). There are no numbers used, or time as you said, just eons. I am not saying you might not be right, I just donât think those verses are good evidence to say so.
Pretty much, yeah. The day humans came, we needed to use a time reference that within our âspecsâ,
no appearance, actually are that far, no more than local time.
pretty much what the Bible and historians say literally happened.
I agree. If we assume the same time reference point that is used today, has always been, that is assumption dependent evidence. However my personal theory is assumption based evidence that the Genesis was literal. I am not saying my theory is any more true or better than EC, but on the flip side, I do not think EC is any more superior than my opinon either.
This is good to do, however you yourself are also making assumptions on the literary type used when you come up with your theory. Be careful to think that you came to your own conclusions via a superior method and look down at us who did the same thing.
Pretty much, yeah. All though I realize the tongue and cheek approach of your post, I feel it is important (since I am agreeing with it) to differentiate a few things. I donât think God was âboredâ with the one part. However I do think He wanted a literal 7 days to play a large role in our lives, so in terms of our reference point, yes, fast forward. I think that is a better tongue and cheek analogy than an explanation.
I donât see why not?
But the entire EC reasoning is all using assumptions (of literary genre) as well. It is requiring all of us to come up with some kind of assumptions to develop our theories. Or else we would all have facts, and I donât think God wanted us to have facts on certain things. I canât claim to know why, but His ways are above my ways. Why doesnât God come down and show Himself outright to everyone of us? First because we would all die if to see His face, but He could make Himself obviously known in scientifically and observation ways, but He chooses not to. Perhaps it is because He arguably already made Himself obviously known to us (Romans 1:19). and He only wants those who want to know Him and seek Him to find Him? I donât know why He made it so seemingly un-knowable of how the universe was made.
I know God is big on humility and pride. Maybe He knew science would have a 13.7 bil explanation that would seem to refute His 7 day claim and He wanted those who were seeking the truth in faith, rather than those who were trying to fit their scientific beliefs with His words. I donât know, this is all maybes.
I donât claim to have all the answers, but I do like to learn and debate on the merits of a theory or the validity of an argument.
[quote=âgodsriddle, post:91, topic:36495â]This is why we must accept the grammar of the text instead of interpretting it with science.
God never lies in word or action. What he says is what we see.
[/quote]
I donât think anyone here is claiming He does lie. We all just have different understandings/assumptions of certain literary genreâs used. I think it is dangerously prideful and arrogant to claim you have the true and only correct interpretation of the Bible. I think a more humble appraoch would be, this is what I think and here is why. Rather than, this is why you are all wrong (passively), because (insert slightly relevant Biblical wisdom that we all agree with).
But I do like your theory, I donât know enough education to fully grasp some of the things you are saying, but it sounds fairly legit to me, I like it. Unfortunately, until I attain the knowledge or education that some of you have, I have to rely on Christians that know this stuff and sum it up for me. Or I can use a consensus of people to confirm what one other person said is accurate and have that person to sum it up for me. But I know there are too many that have a bias to try and have their paradigm fit the the âscienceâ rather than truly seeking the truth. I like when people admit association, and correlation, and (very few times) causation, and allow me to come to my own conclusions, since I have a lower IQ and/or education than many from here.
No change in speed of light required. Speed is distance over time. And time is not relative, or based on what your reference point, which for us, is what we know it to be. But if you changed the speed of time, you would no longer need to change the speed of light to achieve this.
1 Like
They do not call dark matter invisible matter. They do not call space time a vacuum that adjust the frequencies of passing light. Yet that is how they are used to explain away what is visible. The scientific cosmos is 99% undetectable with any instrument. All the undetectable things are need to protect Thomas Aquinasâ metaphysic: that the essence of substance is changeless.
The Bible describe the changes we observe in the visible history of the cosmos. We substantiate the day four creation text. God continues to speak to the luminaries to become spreading things, raqiya. Billions of galaxies spread out into spreading things, as telescopes reveal. However, most of physics definitions, measuring units and mathematical methods we built on the notion that matter is not continually shifting its properties, relationally.
Victor
Multiple experiments have demonstrated that time is relative. For example, the famous Hafele-Keating put used multiple synced atomic clocks on the ground and in the air to demonstrate that distance from a gravitation source and relative velocity causes time to tick at different rates between frames of reference. Time is always relative to a frame of reference.[quote=âstill_learning, post:94, topic:36495â]
But if you changed the speed of time, you would no longer need to change the speed of light to achieve this.
[/quote]
The speed of light is observed to be he same speed in all frames of reference. Any differences in velocity affect the wavelength of light, not its speed. This is why starlight from distant galaxies is redshifted, because there is a relative velocity between us and those distant galaxies. This is also why the CMB has been stretched into the radio wave spectrum.
2 Likes
I agree. I am not saying I am wiser than others. (It is difficult to question assumptions, even using the Bible, without giving the impression that one is smarter than others). I am saying God is true, and all of us get deceived. Yet he did not deceive us.
Why does he not explain his universe in clear text? According to 1 Corinthians 3, he warns us not to be wise in this era. Why not? He is taking the wise with their wisdom.
Why is he so against humanist wisdom? He does not allow us to come to faith by means of our smarts (1 Corinthians 1). People can only come to faith as he works on them to believe his word.
There is simple visible evidence for a biblical creation, especially in the vast cosmos. What I am trying to say is that the biblical God has a plan to defeat science for his great glory. How could he do so? Modern science was founded on the idea Peter predicted for the last days: 2 Peter 3:3-6.
To understand Creation we not only have to use grammar, but we have to understand the limits of our science and how he alone is wise.
Victor
You are applying your Western way of thinking about poetry to a poem written in another language and another culture. And then you decide what a poem written in Hebrew should say. If the author was laying out a 6 + 1 pattern he could have used any unit of time without it having to be a literal 24 hour day. And why would it take a day when God created by command? It should really be the 6 instants of creation. But since this was to be the pattern for the Sabbath it makes sense that the creation story would be documented as being 6 days.
So do you consider Genesis 1-2 literal history or just a 7 unit (not literal days) creation story? Sorry but you have me confused.
1 Like
But that is not time being relative, rather our measurement of it. If you have a 1 hour glass on the earth and one on the moon, time would appear to be moving faster on earth, though time is still going just as fast as it always has, this is just a change in measurement. The atom clock is just a measurement of time, if you change factors in which it operates, the measurement result will also change. But to the guy in space, time is moving at the exact same speed.
Being that actual time is relative (God being outside/the being time revolves around), not just he measurement of it, God can create the universe in 6 days, and and allow it to be measured to 13.7 billion years. Just like a person in space can see the earth hour glass draining and the moon hourglass draining, and know time isnât moving any different for him or either of them.
If you go into a room with no measurement of time, no sun, no windows, no atomic clocks ect. Time is still happening, and one measurement you might attempt to use is your life/age/health. But that also varies with nutrition, sleep patterns, exercise, ect.
Like when people say if you travel faster than the speed of time, time will stop for you. That isnât true. According to our laws of physics, you might stop aging, but time is still occurring. So one could theoretically travel into the future. But it isnât really time travel, its more like, stopping/slowing your aging, so that 1000 years in the future, it could only be 1 sec relative to your body. But one could never travel back in time, since there really isnât a traveling forward in time, rather a suspension of aging. Time happens, you canât go back into time. Measurements of time can be changed/manipulated, but time cannot be. Time is something that occurs, outside of the ways we can measure it. Which is a difficult concept to understand, that is why we only know time as a measurement.
Could God go outside of time (not the measurement, but actual time of happening)? I think it is possible, but maybe not. Being that it is a construct of man, God is outside of it, and being that God knows the future, He could manipulate the present to bring about the future He wants/knows will happen and every possible contingency of every possible change. So in that sense, He could travel into the past, in that the present is the past to Him and so is the future. So God is outside of time in that instance. And Iâm sure when we get to heaven God can explain to us how it works and why our puny human brains couldnât comprehend it, much like a 1 year old isnât going to understand object permanence let alone linear algebra and string theory, we just canât understand God. But it is perfectly logical to attempt to explain/understand/reconcile it using the theory of time being an occurrence, not a measurement, and the universe occurred in (relative to current laws) 6 days, though we measure it in 13.7 billion years, and though God wanted it to take that long, however, He also wanted it to take 7 days since He created it for humans, and that is a good operating specification for humans.
Time warp theory. Everything that scientist measure to have happened, actually happened, no need to change the speed of light, or alter our laws of physics for the universe to be created in 6 days and 13.7 billion years.
True
I think that would follow the category of knowledge, not wisdom. Knowledge is knowing 120v of electricity is in that electrical outlet and X amount of amps will flow through you, and as little as 50 ma can stop your heart ect. Wisdom is not putting a fork in the outlet.
I agree with you there, as do I think most posters on here do too (there are a few atheists on here that donât).
We can make idols or gods of many things, bad and good, but once a good think becomes a god thing, it becomes a bad thing. I think science or pride of man can become a god for many. To know God, and accept Him as our Lord and Savior, we must humble ourselves and admit that we know He created us, and if we allow Him to rule and guide our lives, He will be given glory and we will have an abundant and fruitful life.
I donât think the bad part of hell is the fire. I think it is the eternal separation form God is the real punishment, and that is why there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Imagine everything that is good from this world is non-existent there, moral is up to each man to decide what he wants, and everyone is looking out for themselves. You will see a world without God, and it will not be good. It will be such a nasty place (even if there was no fire). I think a fire is necessary as an attempt to purify us, as Isiah I think was given that coal to allow him to be purified before God, we know fire purifies things, and it requires an eternal burning to purify our sins. That is one how powerful Jesus is in taking this debt for us that we canât pay, but it also shows how serious sin is and how holy God is. Hell is more of a consequence, we are required to be in the fire to purify us (though since it is for an eternity, it never will purify us) but we wonât burn up, so it might be not comfortable. But pain is a relative thing, and pain on earth lets us know that something is wrong and we need to fix it or worse things will happen. Itâs also a reminder that we are human and need God. But if you are born with pain, isnât this not normal to you? I donât think the pain from fire will be the worst part at all. I think heaven will be the opposite. We proved that we wanted to be with God on earth (and through the death and atonement for our sins, Jesus died for us and allowed us to be in Godâs presence and an intercessor here on earth but literally with Him in heaven) and so we will be with Him in heaven. It will be like earth, a new earth, working jobs (tending to the earth) like in the garden, not ones we hate, but joyfully using the gifts He gave us to show His glory forever! I donât think hell is a punishment, but I think it is rather a choice, which some freely choose. I donât want to go to hell because I donât want to be separated from my creator forever, not for fear of fire. He created us to have a relationship with Him, that is why in the garden of Eden, we didnât feel naked, we were closed with His approval/acceptance/security/completeness. But when we sinned, we lost that security, and attempted to attain this security with trees/lies. Everything we do in life to attain completeness is an attempt to fill that void that only God can, and since it canât it is all lies. Sometime lies are easier to believe though. But when we seek the truth and step into the light and see that it is all lies and God is the only security we have and we were designed to have a relationship with Him, we open the door that He has been knocking at and receive Him on this earth, and for eternity in heaven. But in hell, you reject God, you do know want the truth, you find comfort or are trapped in the lies and want to live your own life and control your own destiny and attempt to find your own security. Be it through means of good works, a job, guns, success, friends, education, knowledge ect. Non of these things are bad, but when a good thing becomes god thing (the thing that gives you security and purpose) it becomes a bad thing. But when you put God first, all other things will be given unto you. Some people might not realize it, but they want to go to hell, they reject God and who He is. Satan knows who God is, and he rejected Him, Satan wanted to be toe ruler and provider and security maker, not God. I wonder if hell is an eternal sentence, or an eternal choice? Satan knows how terrible it will be/is, yet he still hasnât turned to God. Perhaps he is not allowed, or perhaps he isnât willing, the possible explanation to the unforgivable sin, blaspheme/rejection of the holy spirit.
All that to say that, that I agree that the âbiblical God has a plan to defeat scienceâ or more so, not to defeat the good thing that science is, rather that bad thing, that god thing that science has become.
Specifically for the reason to have us âliveâ by that 7 day calendar to help us out. That is exactly my point too. Why would it take a day, why not a second, or instantly? It took however long He wanted it to take, to achieve the state that it is in using our laws, which was 13.7 billion years, BUT, since He also wanted us to know of our designer specs that He would use over and over again, He said 7 days, which really was 7 days to parallel all the other literal 7 days.
Again, not saying factual, just my theory. I donât think you are trying to destroy my âfactsâ rather debate my points of my argument that make up my theory.
Literal 7 days, to parallel the other literal 7 days throughout the Bible or the literal 6 years of harvest and 7th year to rest, sets of âsevenâ. But He took 7 days of happening time, and speed up the process of the laws that we know and use today, to have achieved 13.7 billion years of time measurement⌠Not with the intent to deceive, but in order to utilize the laws of energy and physics that are currently in place and the earth to be in the condition that it is currently in, that is how much time is required to have occurred (with regards to our current laws and measurements) But wanted the set an example 7 day calendar too.
sorry it is pretty complex and I confuse it sometimes. It is a complex theory in the weeds of it, but also a very simple theory too (like explained above with âhitting FFâ). We just donât really have a word for âhappeningâ time, so that makes it extra complex to explain, but simple to understand the abstract (time warp or fast forward)
When it comes to understanding speciation - - you certainly donât solve any problems by proposing a time warp theory. But time is certainly relevant to the topic.
The ideas link together like so:
-
Once or if one accepts Speciation, âCommon Descentâ is the automatic outcome of speciation.
-
If one accepts âNatural Selectionâ as the driving factor of so-callled âMicro-Evolutionâ (change within a species or kind), then the important thing to understand about so-called âMacro-Evolutionâ (aka, âSpeciationâ and/or âchange that creates two or more non-interbreeding populationsâ) is that speciation only leads to dramatic changes when sufficient time elapses so that one distinct population has experienced enough changes in its environment to drive the populationâs appearance to some new extreme.
-
While opinions frequently vary on the matter, the fact is that while mutations are generally seen as occurring at a steady rate over the span of thousands or millions of years (with some variations in the pace of change depending on what kind of gene replication is common to that species of plant or animal) - - a population can adopt changes more slowly or more quickly depending on the environmental extremes the population experiences.
If there is a fish population that lives in an isolated lake in an isolated cavern, you wouldnât be surprised if the population develops new physical or behavioral features at a rather slow pace. Mutations happen at a âslow clickâ ⌠while the temperature extremes and and dissolved trace chemicals in the cavern water may change only ever-so-slowly.
While a population of fish trying to survive in the surf zone of a salt water beach may experience tremendous gyrations in environmental factors ⌠from extremes in weather, extremes in new kinds of predators migrating from other parts of the world, high rain fall levels to low rain fall levels. Maybe even a planet-killing asteroid! Unless you are exposing living things to radioactivity, itâs not very likely that mutation rates will constantly jump around.
But in some parts of the world, the environment is the pump that really pushes populations to adapt - - or die. Which brings us to point (4):
- When populations are large, changes in genetics happen very slowly, with the dissemination of successful changes spreading relatively slowly. But if a population has been confronted by brand new survival factors, it is not surprising that population counts can plummet. The irony is, that as the population gets down to very low numbers, mutations and adaptations can spread more quickly and more dramatically. Some scientists believe one of the factors that drove some rapid evolution in hominids is that our lineage of humanity has once or twice experienced some dramatic âbottlenecksâ in population size. One such times was 70,000 years ago - - a common estimate by many academics. The contraction in human population may well be a one-off, special event - - like a massive volcanic disruption, or a meteor, or a fluke virus.
The âbottleneckedâ population is now particularlly responsive to any serendipitous changes in genetic arrangements - - even if it is not to better survive another volcanic eruption (which might be seen as a fairly rare event in a given region), but to survive some other threat to the population.
- So when a population separates into 2 or more sub-groups that are different species, what exactly is it that has happened? The affects of oneâs genes is a multi-faceted thing. Genes control all ranges and expressions of our physiology and our anatomy⌠and especially our ability to reproduce and create new generations!
So, if a change occurs in a chromosome that leads to changes in the alkalinity of the femaleâs womb⌠or a change in brain structure (say, in birds) enables adults to produce more complex mating songs or rituals, then there is an endless list of things that can change that suddenly interferes with one groupâs ability to interbreed successfully with another population that was once considered closely related!
If the trend continues, as genetic transfer from one group to another begins to become less frequent, at some point the two populations will become de-facto isolated from each other. They may still be able to inter-breed, but the odds go down if one population (say, birds, again) prefers brightly colored feathers, and the neighboring population shifted to more neutral colors to reduce predation from a new group of falcons that came into the area.
As things continue to change for both of these isolated populations, sooner or later, the biochemistry between the two populations will change enough that even artificial insemination wouldnât create a viable generation.
Do we think God âpoofedâ Donkeys and Horses into existence, with the special capacity to breed and produce sterile mules? It seems unlikely, wouldnât you think? But if God used Evolution to produce donkeys and now he wanted to to produce horses, the one bi-productd of evolution is that there is the awkward middle ground where two populations are just similar enough to mate ⌠and maybe similar enough to mate and produce infertile offspring. It takes much, much longer for related populations to change enough that there is no mating of any kind.
I think this is enough writing for nowâŚ
If I understand what you are saying you are saying God was deceitful. If He said it took 7 days when it took 4.5 billion years that is the very essence of deceit.
1 Like
Time is a Western notion. Ancient people used clocks, but not to measure time, which had no existence in aspectual languages that did not use verb tenses. They used clocks and calendars to align life to the changes observed in nature. (Change and time are opposite ways of looking at nature). They put more water in a clock for a military summer day watch than a night watch, because days are longer than nights in summer. They did the opposite in winter. Calendars were dynamic, adjusted to align with the changes we observe in nature. They also looked back on the first generations as the golden race. It was those people who lived long lives because everything was different then.
Take a tour of NIST in Colorado, and you may hear that clocks do not measure time, they define it. Indeed, all atomic clocks are really two clocks. When you first turn on a cesium atomic clock, the first clock cycles through a range of frequencies radiating heated cesium. At one point in the sweep, the cesium 133 absorbs the microwaves. It latter relaxes and emits a single frequency. The output clock counts 9,192,631,770 output pulses as a second. it also tunes the first clock with a phased lock loop to tune it for maximum emissions from the cesium. If atoms are shifting their properties relationally, all atomic clocks (along with most physics measuring units) would tune themselves to the changing atoms. Every ancient galaxy shines with different frequencies than modern atoms and the differences increase with distance. When we reflected hydrogen maser controlled radio signals through the transponders on four spinning spacecraft, they also accelerated (relative to distance) in the same manner and direction as the atoms in billions of galaxies. The fact that clocks slow down near massive objects does not mean time slows down. It means matter affects neighboring matter relationally.
The authors of the bible did not speculate about time. Augustine got his notion that God created time and exists outside of time, by combining Plotinusâ philosophy with his religion. In the orginal text, the Bible mentions days, moons, years, long term durations, the blink of an eye, predicted events, cyclical events (Ecclesiastes 3) but a contemporary would not imagine that they were talking about time.
According to Revelations, Jesus is coming to destroy the destroyers of the Earth and establish peace and justice. According to the Old Testament prophets, every man will sit under his vine and fig tree. The plowman will over take the reaper in the abundant agricultural prosperity. there will be no end to the increase of his kingdom and of peace. Although science produces may technological changes, there are always unexpected bad consequences. Even antibiotics produce unintended consequences. I do not think people will learn science or mathematics during his reign. The Western system will be forgotten, see Daniel chapter 2.
Victor
So if I am understanding this concept correctlyâŚ
If you had 100 fish, and those fish mated and made 200 fish, they would mate and make 400 fish and never change due to the large population.
But instead these 100 fish (few) change/evolve to a point were they can no longer mate with the original 100, and make a new species of 100 frogs. And those frogs evolve into a new species at which point they cannot mate with frogs and they become dogs?
Obviously I am skipping stages, but trying to sum it up to understand the big picture. I nothing evolved, they would keep reproducing, which would lower their chance to evolve, and therefore never evolve. But since they evolve in smaller numbers, that evolves them into a new species, which reduces their numbers again, and allows to to evolve faster.
Am I understanding this concept?
I think you are not understanding me correctly. I could understand deceit maybe, if it took 7 days to make, and He made it appear to take 13.7 billion years (why would He make it appear to take that long? (To deceive scientist?).
But He made it in 13.7 billion years, and wanted it to be 7 days (not to deceive) to designate a special symbolic example for us.
Deceit requires intent to mislead for reasons of personal gain. He isnât gaining anything nor is He intended to mislead. IT took 13.7 billion years, no deceit there. But He also wanted to use this 7 day calendar for many things through out the Bible and thought it would be a neat example to control to make it take Him 7 days.
Like a video game designer, it might take them 6 months to build this game, but you start off on day 1. The video game designer isnât trying to deceive you into thinking the game only took 1 day to make, but they want you to start on day 1.
âI want you to measure it to be 13.7 billion years, and have faith that it only took 6 days.â - Hypothetical quote from God, that would show no intent to deceive or mislead.
And sorry for interchanging 6 and 7, I think you know what I meanâŚ
They canât define it, or time wouldnât exist outside of them.
I agree, just like the moon/earth hourglass example. Happening time never slows or stops.
I slightly disagree with that. Like I said, only when a good thing becomes a god thing does it become a bad thing. There is nothing bad about science, it explains God and amplifies His glory. If I thought stuff âpoofedâ, it would be less impressive to me than something that was designed so insanely precise and intelligently. Though if science is the study of discovering, I think you are right, we wonât care enough, or we will know and not need to hypothesis or test things to know the truth. But I think the same physics and math is possible that it will be there.
So He made it in 13.82 billion years. He tells a story about creating it in 6 days. So the 6 days canât be a literal 144 hours can it? Itâs just a story and the days could represent a long period of time. In fact there are other places in the OT where yom is used for what we know to be a long period of time.
How you could read what I wrote and still manage to garble up a nutty stew of error⌠Iâm not sure I will ever fathom.
You ask: âAm I understanding this concept?â
My answer: it would seem⌠no. You are not understanding any of the concepts.
And my interest in helping you learn has dropped like a rock.