When you observe porcine aviators!!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Young Earth - 6,000 or 10,000 Years?
- Thread starter Artimaeus
- Start date
Paul of Eugene
New Member
Appeals to common sense don't make good sense because everybody thinks common sense is on their side!
I think that 6000 years is what people get by adding up the Biblical geneologies exactly as written. Some allow for up to 10,000 years because of possible missing generations or different lengths of lives mentioned.
Genesis 1:1-2
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Note: Genesis 1:1-2 does not give a timeframe. We are not told how long the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. YE'ers must believe the time was very short.
Genesis 1:1-2
Genesis 1
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Note: Genesis 1:1-2 does not give a timeframe. We are not told how long the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. YE'ers must believe the time was very short.
Nope. It doesn't tell us anything. It simple lays there as a fact. You have interpretted it as proof of a common ancestor when it may simply be that God created them with a common trait. Nothing except your presuppositions contradict this. </font>[/QUOTE]You are right. We must examine the range of facts that we observe, hypothysize an explanation and then test that hypothesis with additional observations. In this process, we often look for maximum parsimony. That would be the most simple explanation to fit the facts that are observed. Sometimes this process is referred to as applying Occam's razor.</font>[/QUOTE]That's funny. Ockham's razor would suggest that coding suggests design and thereby a designer. Please cite one instance of anything self organizing and self coding. Ockham's razor weighs in against biological evolution from the very start.
Ockham's razor would suggest that adaptation and speciation had always occurred in the manner overwhelmingly predominate in our observations today- by traits inherited directly from parents and specifically not by accidental chemical malfunctions in DNA which have not been observed to have occurred.
Ockham's razor would never suggest that species become more complex when a process for upward evolution has never been demonstrated to work in a lab much less in the harsh realities of nature. Everything we know about nature from environment to genetics suggests that there is built in resistance to such upward change in complexity.
Ockham's razor would suggest that since the geological column used for dating fossils only exists in a few places in the world and never to the specifications required for uniformitarian assumptions for dating... the dating method is invalid as is chemical dating which directly relies of the column for confirmation.
Evolution virtually never relies on the most simple, direct answer to the question. It relies on the underlying philosophical presupposition to determine what constitutes a valid answer... then maybe chooses the most direct one out of that group.
All of these are possible. The mutation may have occurred in the original kind and any combination of insertions into various lines could have occurred before the lines diverged sufficiently to prevent interbreeding.
This is also possible. And interesting that you would bring this up since evolutionists employ this same answer when convenient to them... when naturalism and the prescribed to uniformatarian model cannot account for commonalities that supposed arose after species split from their common ancestor.
Or each was created separately with a genetic commonality that caused them to mutate alike when exposed to certain environmental conditions.
"C" with my modifications seems to be the most direct and simple explanation. Although the way you phrased it C isn't much different from A.
I assume you mean millions of years of upward evolution in A however?
Please consider the following when you make that argument, TC:
"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. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Exodus 20:11
"Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested."
Exodus 31:12-17
I do feel it is better to let Bible explain Bible than for secular scientists and their believers to try to explain it!
"all that in them is" includes ALL of the so called evidences for "billions" of years. If "all" was created in six days then there is pretty much nothing left to exist prior to those six days. God didn't bless the seventh eon, era, age, or indeterminate time period, he blessed the seventh DAY.
Exo 20:11
(NASB) For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
(ASV) for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(Darby) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(ESV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
(GNB) In six days I, the LORD, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the LORD, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.
(HCSB) For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.
(KJV+) For3588 in six8337 days3117 the LORD3068 made6213 (853) heaven8064 and earth,776 (853) the sea,3220 and all3605 that834 in them is, and rested5117 the seventh7637 day:3117 wherefore5921, 3651 the LORD3068 blessed1288 the (853) sabbath7676 day,3117 and hallowed6942 it.
(KJV-1611) For in sixe dayes the Lord made heauen and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seuenth day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and halowed it.
(KJVA) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(LITV) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.
(Webster) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath-day, and hallowed it.
(YLT) for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.
That's cleverly worded.
If you were intending to do more than state the obvious, perhaps you could support your claim in the [other thread] where you also made this assertion, then never supported it.
All of these are possible. The mutation may have occurred in the original kind and any combination of insertions into various lines could have occurred before the lines diverged sufficiently to prevent interbreeding.
This is also possible. And interesting that you would bring this up since evolutionists employ this same answer when convenient to them... when naturalism and the prescribed to uniformatarian model cannot account for commonalities that supposed arose after species split from their common ancestor.
Or each was created separately with a genetic commonality that caused them to mutate alike when exposed to certain environmental conditions.
"C" with my modifications seems to be the most direct and simple explanation. Although the way you phrased it C isn't much different from A.
I assume you mean millions of years of upward evolution in A however? </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for answering.
You answered C. I would have answered A, but as you suggested, for our purposes, they are not much different.
For comleteness, let's go through the other possibilities first and specify why they are not parsimonious.
For B you have the additional difficulty of explaining why an intellignet designer would give a perfectly designed animal a defective copy of a gene, rendering it useless, that was given to other animals in working order. This added complexity casts doubt upon it.
For E, you take the complexity of B and multiply by the number of diferent species which share the mutation. Even less likely.
The problem with D and F is that you must have the exact same mutation strike several different lines of descent in exactly the same way and become fixed in each population. Too many ifs. Convergent evolution is known, but it would be unusual to see it play out in this manner. But not impossible. You also suggest another explanation; that there was something inherent about the design of the gene in question that made it susceptible to this particular mutation. This calls into question the intelligence of the design, but that's all I'll say about that. That reason you give is plausible if unlikely, but most importantly it is testable. All we need to do is examine additional species with the same gene, from outside our claimed line of descent, and see if they tend to have the same mutation crop up. Since that has not been reported to be the case for this gene, we can rule out that possibility.
So now we are left with A and C. Good pick. The problem for oyu is that you are now back to using the same logic that I used. The more simple explanation is that the mutation happened once and was then inherited. This is the basis of innumerable phylogenies based on genetics. And they are often based on several, dozens, scores of genes. Not just one. And these methods tie together species from much further afield than the "kinds" concept will allow.
Through your own logic, you show that the conclusion is the most likely given the data. But yet you still try and maintain that it is not good logic to use when the data shows common descent over and over and over.
Of course, you failed to mention that in the OT the word heaven(s) is often associatd with the sky (atmosphere) - the abode of the birds. While I generally hold to YEC, the passage in Hebrew does leave some room for an old universe, old earth (foundations), and a very recent biosphere (which was created in six days). But in English Bible translations, we get one word to cover many things.
Here is a scientific article dealing with mutations that says the Earth could be around 6000 years old as the Bible seems to say.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html
What do you think of this article?
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html
What do you think of this article?
He bases his claims upon a single result. Other studies examining the same topic and taking a wider view of the process have found different results.
Here is one paper that looks at several studies of this type, including the one from Parsons that your link uses as his basis.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n5/991452/991452.html
The Mutation Rate in the Human mtDNA Control Region, Sigrún Sigurðardóttir et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet., 66:1599-1609, 2000.
Now this study found that the mutation rate in such hypervariable regions is about 6 - 7 times lower than that found by Parsons. So this immediately turns your 6000 into about 40,000 years.
The funny thing is, this observed rate is still higher than that which is expected through studies that use other methods. There is some discussion about that.
One answer that is suggested has to do with how quickly mutations are fixed into the population. Here is what that means. Not every mutation gets spread through the population. Some eventually die out because they are not passed on. There could be a higher mutation rate, but since not all mutations get fixed into the gene pool, the long term rate of change is much less than would you would expect from simply looking at the change in a small group over a short period of time.