Unless, of course, the water during the channelized flow is entering from several different points.
That doesn’t work. When you put more water in the channel it overflows its banks and spreads out. This creates a braided network of channels, not a single channel with meanders. Again, the Channeled Scablands show this in spades.
3 Likes
Vestigial toes are leftovers from when the common ancestor had 5 toes.
Okay, what do we disagree on? God created a canid “kind” from which dingos, wolves, coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs descended. Then there was a loss of function, with one toe becoming “vestigial.” What we disagree about is that you would say that it was a part of an evolutionary process, while a biblical creationist would say that it was due to genetic entropy that began after creation and as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.
Plenty
What is the common ancestor? How many “kinds” have been identified? What are they?
Over time, horses gradually lost toes (they walk on one toe now) because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve? No, because their environment changed to grassy plains. Now they can run fast on that one hoofed toe. Horses are swift and strong. (Their vestigial toes are reduced to bone splints). Funny how sin made them better suited to a changing environment!
If sin makes your toes fall off then why do people still have 10 fingers and 10 toes? Does God decide when he’s going to get rid of toes? What about polydactyly? Are people with that condition especially virtuous?
1 Like
Genesis 1 does not say “perfect”. The first creation was subjected to futility from its very beginning, on purpose and by design. The new earth, of which the Bible also speaks, will be perfect.
You are right, it says “good” and “very good.” And if the writer had wanted to say “perfect,” what better Hebrew word would he have used? The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 has a broad semantic range, as does the English word “good.” But here it likely is emphasizing that God is preeminently the one who is good, and that his works reflect that goodness.
From your words, you are likely referring to Romans 8:20 and following: (starting with verse 18): 8 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
So creation was subjected to futility, not created with futility, when Adam and Eve rebelled against God. Paul is saying that sin, which affected God’s purpose for man has also affected all of creation, making it contrary to the purpose for which it was designed. F.F. Bruce comments, “Man is part of ‘nature’, and the whole ‘nature’ of which he forms part was created good, has been involved in frustration and futility by sin, and will ultimately be redeemed.”
Creation was not created with futility, but subjected to it whe Adam and Eve choose to break God’s one command that He had given them.
Oh, I don’t know, it looks like this would have worked pretty well:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/8549.htm
It was first hit here, and there might be another one or two:
https://biblescan.com/searchot.php?q=perfect
This would work:
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/3632.htm
Have you ever heard of destructive testing in engineering? Some iterations of a product are ‘subjected to futility’ on purpose, by design, from its beginning.
I’ve posted this before, but maybe not where you’ve seen it?
Yes, it’s a very good thing that the SARS-COV-2 virus is devolving and losing its capabilities. It would be truly terrible if it were gaining information on target binding sites and thus making itself more transmissible and more deadly.
3 Likes
I’m not sure of that argument. The Delta variant is considerably more transmissible, and it is not out of the range of possibilities that additional mutations may make a virus that escapes the vaccines.
Yes, of course. Perhaps I should have tagged my post with an…,
IRONY ALERT
1 Like
Color me dense. 
So I did ask what would be a better word. I did not ask without thinking it through first, and I didn’t find a better one–I don’t think there is a “better” Hebrew word the author could have used.
I considered this word before posting. Eight out of 91 times it is translated with the English word “perfect.” This one generally refers to the sacrifices which are visually perfect (without blemish or defect), kinda like the dog who comes away with the blue ribbon in the dog show. But this describes an animal after the fall, or as you might say, designed by random variations and natural selection, so it would not be “perfect” in either of our interpretive models.
Mostly the same Hebrew word, but another one that is translated “perfect” 3 out of 15 times.
Same word referred to above, 3 out of 15 times “perfect,” and even that is in the sense of “all” or “completely.”
So I think you have shown that the author might have used another word, but probably not that another word would have been better to express perfection.
I think you missed the point, or rather several, including about God’s motivation, ‘destructive testing’ and the two creation model, not to mention elementary geophysics.
So yes, there are a couple of Hebrew words that can be translated as ‘perfect’. Neither was used in Genesis 1. Why not? Because it was merely very good – the first of two creations, it was intended for destruction from before it was made. That sounds to me like it was subjected to futility from the start!
Thankfully, one mutation which increases transmissibility and virulence cannot happen, and that another independent mutation would synergistically compliment the first - the odds against that are greater than the number of particles in the universe.
[quote=“Dale, post:195, topic:46122”]
God’s motivation,
[/quote] Is always and first his glory.
Why would God need to test for points of failure?
Are you referring to the idea that Genesis 1 and 2 are about two different creations?
I am not sure what you mean by that in respect to our discussion, other than perhaps that I come to different conclusions than you have–in other words, if I looked at the data through your eyes, I would come to the same conclusions you have.
You really missed the point. The very good first creation had a purpose, a purpose that included death. By design and before it happened.
No:
No, if you had looked at the data as someone who understood science, you would have.
Truth comes from reality – the truth that comes from the reality of the data that God has revealed in the Bible and the truth that comes from the reality of data that God has revealed in creation. They do not and cannot conflict. If they appear to, then our interpretation of one or the other or both is flawed.