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.
I’ve had a YEC ask me for chapter and verse where the Bible says that truth comes from reality, and another that said that creation was erroneous, as if reality isn’t real. 
1 Like
And at least half dozen or so YECs have told me that I’m “taking Deuteronomy 25:13-16 out of context” by applying its demands for accurate and honest weights and measures to science.
3 Likes
It’s okay to make up your own data or ignore error bars, if you’re defending the Bible.
Yeah, but not if you’re obeying the Bible.
1 Like
Are they just saying it is out of context or are they also objecting to using properly calibrated equipment and taking accurate measurements in science?
Did you miss this, perhaps?:
Continuing an off-topic subthread, not good news:
They also seemed to have forgotten that the Bible exists in reality.
3 Likes
The Missoula floods are incompatible with young-earth claims, because they demonstrate that geologists can recognize the types of deposits and features produced by floods from other types of deposits and features. Also, they took too long - there is a sequence of multiple episodes of damming, forming a large lake, having the dam fail, and then redamming as the glacier advanced again or the lack of water in the lake allowed ice to build back up. Their erosion exposed lots of layers that indicate much more time to form. The famous rhino mold, for example, preserves where a dead rhino got buried by a lava flow. That can’t happen during a global flood - the carcass would be washed away, not available for the lava flow, and the lava flow would have a water-cooled top, not air-cooled.
A Missoula-style flood can promote the gouging out of an existing valley. But that doesn’t promote meanders, nor matching canyons for multiple tributaries. There’s lots of data available on them; check all the literature, not just the young-earth sources.
Likewise, the genetic entropy model does not reflect biological reality. Organisms with shorter generation times typically have higher rates of genetic change over time. [“typically” - thee are multiple factors involved, so no one feature automatically determines relative mutation rates] If genetic entropy were real, it should be wiping out species that go through multiple generations in a year. You’re implying that mosquitoes don’t exist. A biblical creationist would say that the change in canids was part of an evolutionary process. Claiming that it is genetic entropy is not biblical, but rather is part of the mythology of modern young-earth creationism. There is no difference between the supposedly impossible “new genetic information” and the ordinary duplications, deletions, and insertions. It’s all a bunch of A, G, T, and C. If a DNA sequence works well enough as a code for directions to make a living thing, it survives long enough to potentially get passed to the next generation, in somewhat altered form. Besides whatever mutations have occurred, in the case of sexual reproduction, DNA from another individual is added to the mix; in the case of meiosis there is also mixing between the chromosomes within an individual. That’s new information, no matter how much ID and creation science advocates want to deny it. Any DNA sequence has the ability to code for RNAs or proteins. Whether those RNAs or proteins happen to be useful is tested against the environment. This can lead to new functions, as has been demonstrated in lab experiments, but it tends to be a bit slow for watching in actual organisms that have generation times longer than bacteria. If you look up the canid genomes freely available on GenBank, you can see the new information developed in different lineages. For example, a mutation to make a darker coat has occurred in various dog lineages and spread to some wolves by hybridization.
3 Likes
We can also make simple observations.
Some breeds developed for working in water, such as the Newfoundland retriever, have webbed feet.
1 Like
That may not be the best example. Dog embryos, and tetrapod embryos in general, have webbing between their phalanges early in development. Separate phalanges are created by apoptosis in the cells making up the webbing.
I know that. So did the newfie gain information or did the beagle lose information? Guess we’ll have to ask Craig about the original dog kind!
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.