The Missing Links in the Fossil Record

[iouae]

As mentioned earlier, secular geneticists know that our genome (And the genome of all primates) is in a downward spiral. We suffer about 150 NEW slightly deleterious mutations and about 3 deleterious mutations which are added to our genome with each successive generation. These are added to the thousands of harmful mutations each of us already have. Natural selection is incapable of detecting and removing these mutations. (Waiting once again for you to say you doubt secular geneticists in secular journals agree)

I think that YEC go to the same sources, and learn the same arguments which no "secular" scientists give a thought to. I doubt that more than a few secular scientists in the world feel the human population is in danger of extinction due to genetic load.

Is it your belief that genetic load on humans is increasing due to lack of natural selection?
Only in modern times with technology, are humans staying alive longer than normal. Throughout the rest of human history, humans died like flies, keeping the world population of humans quite stable and low.

Here is what one secular source concludes.

"... although modern medicine and lifestyle changes have undoubtedly reduced natural selection in some human populations, natural selection still occurs in all human populations. There is scope for selection in the germline cell lineages (Reed and Aquadro 2006), and many pregnancies spontaneously abort (Edmonds et al. 1982). Sexual selection still operates in human societies (Perrett et al. 1999), and this and other factors generate family size variation, allowing opportunities for natural selection. For example, selection associated with variation in male wealth in contemporary populations is at least as strong as selection measured in field studies of natural populations of other species (Nettle and Pollet 2008). Finally, a change in mean fitness could be inconsequential if selection is soft (for example, it might not matter if everyone becomes 5% less sexually attractive). The above considerations lead to doubts about whether deleterious mutation accumulation will produce a detectable fitness loss in humans in the foreseeable future. Less speculative, perhaps, is the existence of finite global energy, food, and water resources. Coupled with expanding human populations, these factors may intensify competition and lead to stronger natural selection in years to come."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276617/

 

[George Affleck]

I think that YEC go to the same sources, and learn the same arguments which no "secular" scientists give a thought to. I doubt that more than a few secular scientists in the world feel the human population is in danger of extinction due to genetic load.

Oh they think about it alright. They think about it a lot.
http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869
https://www.nature.com/articles/2161348a0
https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com...fast-genetic-load-and-the-future-of-humanity/

But they fail to understand it or its importance because their presuppositions are slaves to evolutionary fairy tales.

 

[iouae]

Oh they think about it alright. They think about it a lot.
http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869

One interesting paragraph from the link you provided above is the following...

"Because human brain function is governed by the expression of thousands of genes, the germline mutation rate to psychological disorders may be unusually high. At least 30% of individuals with autism spectrum disorders appear to acquire such behaviors by de novo mutation (Iossifov et al. 2015). Notably, human brain cells also incur up to dozens of mobile-element insertions per cell (Erwin et al. 2014; Richardson et al. 2014), implying a level of somatic mutation far beyond the expectation noted above based on point mutations."

I read that to say, mutation load in humans may first manifest itself as mental illness, since the human brain depends on so many genes to function right.

There is a huge increase in autism and dementia.

In the blessings and cursing chapter it is written...
Deu 28:28
The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:

Humans are doing many things to increase mutations, such as x-rays, chemicals, additives, roundup, pollution - maybe even that iPhone held so close to one's brain emitting microwaves etc. Cancer is increasing and is a sign of genes under pressure.

 

[6days]

I think that YEC go to the same sources, and learn the same arguments which no "secular" scientists give a thought to.

IOW... you don't understand the topic, but wish to share your opinions based on secular evolutionary beliefs.

Is it your belief that genetic load on humans is increasing due to lack of natural selection?

It isn't a belief that genetic load is increasing, that is the data. And natural selection is incapable of removing 150 plus new mutations added to our genome with each sucessive generation, in a population with a birth rate of about 2.

Only in modern times with technology, are humans staying alive longer than normal. Throughout the rest of human history, humans died like flies, keeping the world population of humans quite stable and low.

Nope... The Bible tells us that the first humans lived hundreds of years. As mutations increased, longevity decreased. (You can graph it). In the modern era, most of us are only here because of vacinnes, antibiotics, etc. Our current genetic load would be a HUGE problem if not for modern medicine. (Perhaps none of us would be here).


But, in any case... Increased selection pressure can never overcome a high mutation rate in a population with low birth rates.

Here is what one secular source concludes...

Evolutionists are so eager to reject data that contradicts their beliefs, they invariably pass over key words in articles. You seemed to miss that the conclusion was "speculative". Geneticists know the data shows genetic load is increasing. They have created various models trying to understand how humanity has survived.


Your article is by geneticist Keightly. He has been trying for many years to understand the problem of increasing load within his evolutionary belief system. He still can't figure it out, that's why he uses belief words in his articles such as "if" and "speculative". Back in 1999 Keightley discussed the problem in an article titled ' High Genomic Deleterious Mutation Rates in Hominids'. He said "It is difficult to explain how human populations could have survived...( the high mutation rate)". Further in the article he says that "deleterious mutation rate appears to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive"


Iouae... why are you so willing to accept speculation, psuedoscience and false beliefs, instead of the clear teaching of scripture?




"...

 

[iouae]

Your article is by geneticist Keightly. He has been trying for many years to understand the problem of increasing load within his evolutionary belief system. He still can't figure it out, that's why he uses belief words in his articles such as "if" and "speculative". Back in 1999 Keightley discussed the problem in an article titled ' High Genomic Deleterious Mutation Rates in Hominids'. He said "It is difficult to explain how human populations could have survived...( the high mutation rate)". Further in the article he says that "deleterious mutation rate appears to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive"


Iouae... why are you so willing to accept speculation, psuedoscience and false beliefs, instead of the clear teaching of scripture?




"...

Both you and I believe that humans have been on earth for 6000 years, and only have to be around 1000 more.

So this is not a problem, even if there was the tiniest chance of it being true.

I know of organisms which have been around since the beginning of the Cambrian, with no problems of mutation accumulation.

But this is the kind of science you are very good at - fringe arguments trying to nullify mainstream science.
Of all the things which could threaten human existence, this would be bottom of the list.

And by the exponential growth in human population, with increasing longevity, it looks like the human species is handling the load just fine.

And during the millennium, humans will last the full 1000 years, like pre-flood.

Isa 65:20
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

So it probably is not something in the genes, but something in the environment which has shortened human lifespan.

 

[6days]

Both you and I believe that humans have been on earth for 6000 years, and only have to be around 1000 more.

Problem is... you seem evasive to tell us what you really believe.

* You seem to believe that soulless hominids existed long before "The beginning"?

* You seem to believe in various aspects of billions of years of stellar evolution... and perhaps chemical evolution / abiogenesis? I don't know.

* You perhaps believe that a created kind like land animals from the 6th creation day, evolveded into a whale which was created on the 5th day?

* You seem to reject God's claim that he made the Sun, moon and stars on the 4th day?

* You seem to reject that thorns exist in our world due to man's sin? Don't you believe thorns, pain, death, entropy existed in a creation God called "Very good?"


So.... No, we don't believe the same. Your belief attacks the foundation to the gospel, and leads new believers to think the Bible does not mean what it plainly says. (And your beliefs seem to reject science, and prefer "speculations")

I know of organisms which have been around since the beginning of the Cambrian, with no problems of mutation accumulation.

I know organisms that have been around since creation. I don't know what their genome was like 6000 years ago to compare to today's organisms.

Well... thanks for your kind words!


Genetic load is not fringe science though. There are numerous articles in secular journals detailing the problem, and speculating how to shoehorn the data into their evolutionary belief system. You were provided with one example so far... from a geneticist you seemed to trust.

And by the exponential growth in human population, with increasing longevity, it looks like the human species is handling the load just fine.

Your psuedo-science beliefs were noted in my previous post. Every single human has thousands of deleterious mutations and the number grows by 150 or more with every generation. Genetic disorders will continue to grow. Selection is impotent at detecting VSDM's.

And during the millennium, humans will last the full 1000 years, like pre-flood.

Actually, the millennium is very different in that Satan is bound. It will be a time of peace.... certainly not like pre-flood earth. I might be wrong, but I don't see God removing consequences of the curse (death, pain, sufferting) during the 1000 years?

So it probably is not something in the genes, but something in the environment which has shortened human lifespan.

Why are you rejecting the science? Was the scientist you quoted (Keightley) wrong about the data? (Actually, in a way he was, but in the opposite direction of what you seem to think. Geneticists now know the problem is greater than what Keightley thought back in 1999).


BTW.... Do you realize you are floundering trying to defend your beliefs? Ex. In an above post you say "arguments ( about increasing genetic load are arguments) which no "secular" scientists give a thought to." Then in the exact same post you quote a scientist "Here is what one secular source concludes. (He says he is "speculating" about the increasing genetic load). Maybe I should stop replying to you and you could just keep arguing with yourself?

 

[iouae]

Genetic load is not fringe science though. There are numerous articles in secular journals detailing the problem, and speculating how to shoehorn the data into their evolutionary belief system. You were provided with one example so far... from a geneticist you seemed to trust.


Your psuedo-science beliefs were noted in my previous post. Every single human has thousands of deleterious mutations and the number grows by 150 or more with every generation. Genetic disorders will continue to grow. Selection is impotent at detecting VSDM's.

Why I say you specialise in fringe science is because if one Googles "list threats human life on earth", one gets things like nuclear war, global warming, asteroid impact and the rise of robots etc. But no mainstream scientists I can find, considers mutation load in humans a threat. Maybe it might figure at #127 near the bottom of some fringe list, possibly compiled by your friends.

That said, I do enjoy chatting to you because my fringe science is very rusty.

 

[iouae]

"The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming. There is perhaps no greater attack on science than Young Earth creationism (YEC)."

This comes from... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Mainstream science is overwhelmingly in favour of an old earth and older cosmos.
The problem does not lie with scientists misinterpreting the evidence, it lies squarely with Christians misinterpreting the scriptures.

Genesis 1 says that Adam, Eve and a whole lot of modern animals like sheep and cows and domesticated animals, and grasses and fruiting plants and doves etc. were put on earth at the same time, after earth was in a state described as "without form and void".

The Bible does not talk about time prior to this event, because the Bible does not feel a need to explain what God has been doing for all endless time.

From counting genealogies, Ussher and others have concluded that everything physical arose at the time when man was placed in Eden. That is a false assumption. And from there it is just downhill, as Christians go further and further into fringe science to try and explain away mainstream science.

And it is all so unnecessary for Christians to daily make fools of themselves by insisting that the material universe is only 6000 years old, when the skies and rocks are shouting the exact opposite.

Like I say, the problem lies with Christian interpretation, not scientific interpretation.
Not for a second am I saying that evolution or Dawkins are correct. There is some bad science around too, just as there is bad theology.

We Christians need to stop holding indefensible lines, because we want to be heroes.
Christian faith has better battles to fight. And YEC is, in my opinion, as poisonous to the youth as evolution, because both are indefensible lies.

The Bible starts the story of human salvation maybe 6000 years ago.
The prequel to this is written in the rocks and fossils, but because the fossil record does not affect human salvation, God did not bother explaining what He was busy with before mankind.

The Bible only concerns itself with human salvation. When Christians want to make it say science stuff, they so often go astray, and get egg all over themselves.

And ironically, they start using science, this thing which is like a bad smell to them, to disprove science. But they use fringe science to disprove mainstream science.

It is like Christians who despise medicine believing in faith healing, yet at the same time they use fringe medicine like homeopathy, chiropractors, herbs, grandma's old recipe, yoga, acupuncture, crystals etc. when they get sick.

 

[6days]

But no mainstream scientists I can find, considers mutation load in humans a threat.

Threat against what iouae?

Mutation load, and the concern by geneticists is true no matter if you understand it or not. As geneticist Crow says "The decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation" http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

"The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming. There is perhaps no greater attack on science than Young Earth creationism (YEC)."

I'm not really surprised you now rely on quotes from atheist web sites. BTW... What Talkorigins actually is discussing is an attack against their belief system... not science.

Mainstream science is overwhelmingly in favour of an old earth and older cosmos.

Fortunately, science and truth are not determined by majority. (Or you might still believe in pangenesis...or that the earth is 4.55 BYO)

Genesis 1 says that Adam, Eve and a whole lot of modern animals like sheep and cows and domesticated animals, and grasses and fruiting plants and doves etc. were put on earth at the same time, after earth was in a state described as "without form and void".

Yes, the earth had no form and was empty. God shaped and filled the earth over the course of six days, during which time He also made the sun, moon and stars.

From counting genealogies, Ussher and others have concluded that everything physical arose at the time when man was placed in Eden.

Yes, because Scripture tells us that in six days God created the heavens, and the earth, and everything in them.

And it is all so unnecessary for Christians to daily make fools of themselves by insisting that the material universe is only 6000 years old, when the skies and rocks are shouting the exact opposite.

The Bible tells us about our young universe, and science helps confirm it.

... YEC is, in my opinion, as poisonous to the youth as evolution

Your "opinion" is common, but it isn't correct. PEW Research survey revealed youth who grew up believing you could add billions of years into Genesis, were less likely to uphold Biblical authority on other issues such as virgin birth.

but because the fossil record does not affect human salvation

Of course the fossil record doesn't effect salvation.

The Bible only concerns itself with human salvation. When Christians want to make it say science stuff...

Christians shouldn't 'make the Bible say stuff'.... But they should believe it no matter what topic it touches on (history, science, human nature, genealogies, etc)

 

[iouae]

Threat against what iouae?

Mutation load, and the concern by geneticists is true no matter if you understand it or not. As geneticist Crow says "The decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation" http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8380.full

And if the average generation length is 25.5 years divided into 6000 equals 235.29 multiplied by 1.5 equals 353.
Thus we are 353 % mutation accumulation today, meaning that three times over we should not be alive - yet look how well humankind is still doing today, in spite of fringe science.

I'm not really surprised you now rely on quotes from atheist web sites. BTW... What Talkorigins actually is discussing is an attack against their belief system... not science.

I like their site, because it summarises the evidence for an old universe, saving me the effort.

Fortunately, science and truth are not determined by majority. (Or you might still believe in pangenesis...or that the earth is 4.55 BYO)

From the NCSE
https://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164

"In short, then, the hard core of young-earth creationists represents at most one in ten Americans—maybe about 31 million people—with another quarter favoring creationism but not necessarily committed to a young earth. One or two in ten seem firmly committed to evolution, and another third leans heavily toward evolution. About a third of the public in the middle are open to evolution, but feel strongly that a god or gods must have been involved somehow, and wind up in different camps depending how a given poll is worded."

You are a one in ten 6days.

Yes, the earth had no form and was empty. God shaped and filled the earth over the course of six days, during which time He also made the sun, moon and stars.

The NCSE should be worried. If the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day, we could not have had days for the first three since we need the sun, moon and stars to determine one rotation of earth, and to make evening (moon and stars) and the morning (sun).

Yes, because Scripture tells us that in six days God created the heavens, and the earth, and everything in them.

Yes, after a mass extinction had destroyed everything, many times before.

The Bible picks up the story 6000 years ago. What does the Bible say about before this? It's not like God did nothing until 6000 years ago. Luckily cosmology tells us that God was busy with the cosmos for the last 13.75 billion years, and before that He had to think up all the laws governing atoms and weak and strong forces. I am sure that took a few billion years.

Then God made life in the form of photosynthetic unicellular algae, and finally, true multicellular life -

"The Ediacaran (/ˌiːdiˈækərən/; formerly Vendian) biota consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped, mostly sessile organisms that lived during the Ediacaran Period (ca. 635–542 Mya). Trace fossils of these organisms have been found worldwide, and represent the earliest known complex multicellular organisms.[note 1] The Ediacaran biota radiated in an event called the Avalon explosion, 575 million years ago,[1][2] after the Earth had thawed from the Cryogenian period's extensive glaciation. The biota largely disappeared with the rapid increase in biodiversity known as the Cambrian explosion. Most of the currently existing body plans of animals first appeared in the fossil record of the Cambrian rather than the Ediacaran. For macroorganisms, the Cambrian biota appears to have completely replaced the organisms that dominated the Ediacaran fossil record, although relationships are still a matter of debate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota

That brings us to 530 million years ago. So science helps fill in the pre-Genesis period.

The Bible tells us about our young universe, and science helps confirm it.

No, the Bible tells us about the bit of earth's history which concerns the salvation of man. God was not trying to save dinosaurs, so the Bible does not start back then.

Your "opinion" is common, but it isn't correct. PEW Research survey revealed youth who grew up believing you could add billions of years into Genesis, were less likely to uphold Biblical authority on other issues such as virgin birth.

Many "flat-earthers" are also Bible literalists..
"Modern flat Earth societies consist of individuals who promote the idea that the Earth is flat rather than an oblate spheroid. Such groups date from the middle of the 20th century; some adherents are serious and some are not. Those who are serious are often motivated by pseudoscience or religious literalism.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies

Of course the fossil record doesn't effect salvation.

Christians shouldn't 'make the Bible say stuff'.... But they should believe it no matter what topic it touches on (history, science, human nature, genealogies, etc)

Gen 32:31
And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.

Then why don't you believe that the sun rises? Instead you believe the sun stands still and the earth turns.

And if Rev 7:1 says that the earth has four corners, this sounds like it is a square sheet or flat. Why are you not a flat-earther?

My answer is that maybe Rev 7:1 is not trying to make a science point.

And when God says " I have given every green herb for meat:" He is not saying you can't eat mushrooms. Everything said in the Bible has a context, and a reason for it being said.

 

[6days]

... yet look how well humankind is still doing today, in spite of fringe science.

Crow, Kondrashov, Keightley, Lynch, Crowell etc. might understand genetics a wee bit better than iouae. They all have published articles in journals discussing the problem of genetic load. Or as geneticist Bryan Sykes says "The human Y chromosome is “crumbling before our very eyes".

I like their site (atheist site talkorigins) because it summarises the evidence for an old universe, saving me the effort.

I understand why you like it... They deny Biblical authority

From the NCSE

Another science denying site you like.. Their mission is defending evolutionism. I do however think their former director, Eugenie C. Scott, made a statement that all evolutionists should take to heart. She said
" now what about science?... I think I'd be satisfied if Americans would get into 2 habits. First, ask, 'is there another explanation'? ... after we get people into the habit of asking, 'is there another explanation'? We need to get them to ask, "How do I tell which explanation is better?" (in 'Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism').

You are a one in ten 6days.

Thanks! (My wife thinks I'm a ten though, ha)

If the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day...

"God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars....And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day." Genesis 1

It isn't an "if". God tells us He created EVERYTHING in six days.

...we could not have had days for the first three since we need the sun, moon and stars to determine one rotation of earth, and to make evening (moon and stars) and the morning (sun).

Actually, the Bible tells us "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”
And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

Then God made the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day.

Yes, after a mass extinction had destroyed everything, many times before.

No... God made everything in 6 days including the universe. it was not a re-creation. See Ex. 20:11

The Bible picks up the story 6000 years ago. What does the Bible say about before this? It's not like God did nothing until 6000 years ago.

It would not matter if God had created 100 quintillion years ago, you would still be asking what God had done in eternity past. We don't know what God did before, but we do know that Scripture tells us that God created everything in six days.

Luckily cosmology tells us that God was busy with the cosmos for the last 13.75 billion years, and before that He had to think up all the laws governing atoms and weak and strong forces. I am sure that took a few billion years.

Luckily, God tells us that He created the heavens, and the earth, and everything in them in six days. When He spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command. Psalm 33:9

That brings us to 530 million years ago. So science helps fill in the pre-Genesis period.

That belief system is at the heart of various heretical articles published by Biologos. The Hebrew context, (the cardinal number in Gen. 1:5) prohibits a pre-genesis period. This tells us it was the absolute beginning.

No, the Bible tells us about the bit of earth's history...

True... starting with "the beginning".

Many "flat-earthers" are also Bible literalists.

That is likely just another of your false beliefs. The president of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist and agnostic / atheist. https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.
Then why don't you believe that the sun rises?

I do believe the sun rose..... in fact, that is the same language people still use today describing sun rise. Theistic evolutionists seem to have such a difficult time with language. When the Bible tells you to lift your eyes to the hills... is it a painful procedure? When the Bible tells you that Jesus was born of a vigin, do you dismiss it as allegorical? (It isn't difficult to understand a sun rise)

My answer is that maybe Rev 7:1 is not trying to make a science point.

Very good! However, Genesis is providing our history.

And when God says " I have given every green herb for meat:" He is not saying you can't eat mushrooms. Everything said in the Bible has a context, and a reason for it being said.

Correct... mushrooms would be part of the vegetarian diet God gave to all animals and humans before sin and death entered the world. God gave new instructions in Gen. 9:3 "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything"

 

[iouae]

6days

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

My question is this...
1) Are the rest of the verses in Genesis chapter 1 elaborating on Genesis 1:1, meaning are they expanding on or unpacking Genesis 1:1?

.. or...

2) Are the rest of the verses in Genesis chapter 1 going on to describe what God did AFTER He created the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1?

My logic says it can only be the one or the other. It cannot be both.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to speed up the process by telling you how I am going to respond to your answer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If one says that Gen 1:2 onwards follows after Gen 1:1 in time (answer 1) then you are in my camp, and anything could have happened in the timespan between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

If however one says that Gen 1:2 onwards is describing what was summarised in Gen 1:1 (or answer 2) then here is your problem…

Even before day 1 the following situation pertains…
Gen 1:2
And 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.

So, before day 1 we have an earth. When was that created?
We have a deep or sea, with waters. When was that created?

So we have stuff before day 1 when God created light.

Thus you are left without an explanation of where the earth with its waters came from, since they were there before day 1.
Thus you are in my camp, that there is an earth with water before Day 1.

And you have no clue what happened to this earth with water before day 1.
So you are definitely in my camp, that something exists, viz an earth with its sea, before the Lord does some fixing up in 6 days.

Thus, your explanation that God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days is technically incorrect since the earth exists before the six days begin.
Which is exactly what I have been saying.

And if you try to say that God created the heavens, the earth and light on day 1, then you are also technically incorrect, because then we would say that God created the heavens and the earth in one day, not six days.

 

[6days]

My question is this...
1) Are the rest of the verses in Genesis chapter 1 elaborating on Genesis 1:1, meaning are they expanding on or unpacking Genesis 1:1? .. or...
2) Are the rest of the verses in Genesis chapter 1 going on to describe what God did AFTER He created the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:1?..........

If one says that Gen 1:2 onwards follows after Gen 1:1 in time (answer 1) then you are in my camp, and anything could have happened in the timespan between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.

The problem you have is imagining a vast period of time between the two verses... a time span Scripture does not allow. There are a number of ways we know from Scripture, and from the Hebrew context, that nothing preceded day 1 of creation. I can give several ways from scripture we know that day 1 was an absolute beginning, and that the day was what we refer to as a 24 hour day. Scripture does not suggest this was a re-shaping from pre-existing materials.
But, why give you a variety of additional explanations from Scripture, and Hebrew context, when you haven't responded to the first answer given to you?

Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy."

So, God made everything in six days., correct? Can we not trust what that verse plainly states?

And if you try to say that God created the heavens, the earth and light on day 1, then you are also technically incorrect, because then we would say that God created the heavens and the earth in one day, not six days.

The answer is in scripture. God formed and filled the earth, and the heavens , over the course of six days. The initial step on day 1 ... "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."... Keep reading to see what else happened on day 1, and each of the subsequent days.

 

[iouae]

Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them;
So, God made everything in six days., correct? Can we not trust what that verse plainly states?

puck...puck...puck...

I knew you would be too chicken to say if Gen 1:1 occurred in time BEFORE Gen 1:2-31, or whether Gen 1:2-31 are an elaboration of Gen 1:1.

That is the only question I would like answered.

 

[6days]

I knew you would be too chicken to say if Gen 1:1 occurred in time BEFORE Gen 1:2-31, or whether Gen 1:2-31 are an elaboration of Gen 1:1.

Your 'question was answered by Scripture. God created everything in six days. You can read what happens on each day in Genesis 1.

Here is day 1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day."

 

[Jonahdog]

Your 'question was answered by Scripture. God created everything in six days. You can read what happens on each day in Genesis 1.

Here is day 1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day."

Nope, never happened that way. Amazing what your fear of your deity requires of you.

 

[iouae]

Your 'question was answered by Scripture. God created everything in six days. You can read what happens on each day in Genesis 1.

Here is day 1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day."

Thank you for your answer 6days.

You chose the safest possible answer, but I am sorry to tell you that it is a wrong answer.

Day 1 started, like all of the other 6 days with God saying something. So when God said "let there be light" that was what God did on day 1. Check out all 6 days of creation. What is made is made by God saying.

So Day 1 begins with the heaven/cosmos in place and an earth covered with water, covered with darkness. This was not created on day 1. Genesis 1:1 is not part of day 1. That occurred "in the beginning", long before the earth was/became without form and void.

And you quoted from Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them; but on the seventh day he rested. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy."

When God made the heavens it means He made the heavenly ecosystem with birds.
When God made the earth, it means he made the terrestrial ecosystem of terrestrial life.
When God made the sea, it means the marine ecosystem with aquatic life.

This summary refers to the new heavens and earth ecosystems of very modern fauna and flora...

Cattle
Man
Birds like doves
Trees with fruit
Plants with seed inside (Angiosperms).
Grass
Whales

All these organisms are fairly modern. Domestic animals have only been around since the creation of Adam and Eve.

Thus, support for a recreation, or the Holocene fauna and flora.

 

[iouae]

Crow, Kondrashov, Keightley, Lynch, Crowell etc. might understand genetics a wee bit better than iouae. They all have published articles in journals discussing the problem of genetic load. Or as geneticist Bryan Sykes says "The human Y chromosome is “crumbling before our very eyes".

I will have to look into this, since my knowledge of science tends to be more mainstream. But thanks, it might be interesting.

Another science denying site you like.. Their mission is defending evolutionism. I do however think their former director, Eugenie C. Scott, made a statement that all evolutionists should take to heart. She said
" now what about science?... I think I'd be satisfied if Americans would get into 2 habits. First, ask, 'is there another explanation'? ... after we get people into the habit of asking, 'is there another explanation'? We need to get them to ask, "How do I tell which explanation is better?" (in 'Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism').

Are they not just the USA body controlling science education?
I like their advice.
You told me in a previous post praising homeschooling that they encourage teaching creation and evolution. Is this body not just doing the same, which is what you praised? BTW I am not a fan of homeschooling. Neither was my kid, when I asked him if he wanted to be homeschooled. His answer "Hell no!!!"

Thanks! (My wife thinks I'm a ten though, ha)

I am sure she is right.

Actually, the Bible tells us "God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.”
And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day.

Then God made the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day.

Did you notice how the usually very articulate 6days, suddenly became incomprehensible when trying to explain how God made the heavens on day 1, then made light on day 1, then determined that a day had passed on day 1, all before the sun, moon and stars which comprise the heaven, were only created on day 4

(the cardinal number in Gen. 1:5) prohibits a pre-genesis period. This tells us it was the absolute beginning.

I know what the words "first" and "second"... mean. You can try labelling them "cardinal numbers" and hope that some silly five-year old will be fooled by this pretence at making "first" mean "first ever".

That is likely just another of your false beliefs. The president of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist and agnostic / atheist. https://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society

The only flat-earthed I ever met was a man who knew his Bible better than me, who also believed that nothing is real, not even a flat earth. I never quite caught his logic.

When the Bible tells you that Jesus was born of a vigin, do you dismiss it as allegorical?

Why would I not believe in a virgin birth? I believe in all miracles, and try to take the Bible literally, where possible.

 

[6days]

You chose the safest possible answer, but I am sorry to tell you that it is a wrong answer.

My answer was just a quote from Scripture. Yes, that is the safest possible answer. I don't need to try expain away what it says.

So Day 1 begins with the heaven/cosmos in place and an earth covered with water, covered with darkness. This was not created on day

That contradicts God's Word. He tells us He created everything in six days....(Not that He recreated the heavens and the earth.) See Ex. 20:11 Besides the clear words of Moses, Jesus also taught a young earth, discussing humanity from a time near the beginning of creation. Mark 10:6...and from the foundation of the world Luke 11:50,51. Jesus said that prohets had been predicting the Savior since the world began. Luke 1:70. Paul also believed Moses, saying that humainty does not have an excuse for not knowing God' since His power has been in evidence from the creation of the world. Rom. 1:20

1. Genesis 1:1 is not part of day 1. That occurred "in the beginning", long before the earth was/became without form and void.

That is your belief, but it contradicts the words of Moses, Jesus and Paul. Your belief contradicts the Gospel placing billions of years of death, pain and suffering before sin. And, your beliefs contradict the clear understanding of the Hebrew language / context.

And you quoted from Ex. 20:11 .... When God made the heavens it means He made the heavenly ecosystem with birds.
When God made the earth, it means he made the terrestrial ecosystem of terrestrial life.
When God made the sea, it means the marine ecosystem with aquatic life.

Sad how you keep trying to explain away what God says.
Ex. 20:11 actually says "For in six days the Lord made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them..."

This summary refers to the new heavens and earth ecosystems of very modern fauna and flora...
Cattle
Man
Birds like doves
Trees with fruit
Plants with seed inside (Angiosperms).
Grass
Whales
All these organisms are fairly modern. Domestic animals have only been around since the creation of Adam and Eve.

Again, that is your belief, trying to explain away what Scripture actually tells us. Genesis 1 tells what God actually created, and a very different order from your belief system. You reject what Scripture clearly says.

 

[6days]

I will have to look into this, since my knowledge of science tends to be more mainstream.

You are confusing evolutionism with science. Your 'knowledge' of genetics is essentially non-existent. Your beliefs contradict all "mainstream" geneticists.

Are they not just the USA body controlling science education?

Haha... No, the NCSE likely wants you to think they control science education. What they do is mostly promote evolutionism, but also a wee bit regarding climate change.

Is this body (NCSE)not just doing the same (as home schooling)...

I don't think you thought that through before you posted?

Did you notice how the usually very articulate 6days, suddenly became incomprehensible when trying to explain how God made the heavens on day 1, then made light on day 1, then determined that a day had passed on day 1, all before the sun, moon and stars which comprise the heaven, were only created on day 4

Once again... it isn't me explaining how God created and what order. I simply quoted scripture.

I know what the words "first" and "second"... mean. You can try labelling them "cardinal numbers" and hope that some silly five-year old will be fooled by this pretence at making "first" mean "first ever".

You obviously DON'T understand it.
I'm going to use Young's Literal Translation to show this, since most translations don't properly reflect an important nuance that is in the Hebrew.
Genesis 1
8 ...."day second."
13 .... "day third."
19 .... "day fourth."
23 ...."day fifth."
31 ... "day the sixth."

In the Hebrew, these are called 'ordinal'numbers.
But... Why is Day 1 not an ordinal number...IE. Why doesn't the Hebrew call it 'the first day'?
Again Youngs Literal translation says this...
Genesis 1:5 "and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one."

"Day one"... not, 'day first' (or first day). This is significant because it is now a 'cardinal' number in the Hebrew.
There was no other days before this time. And, it was so far thee only day. There was only that one day.... Thus the cardinal number is apt.

Also of course significant in this verse is that God Himself defines what a days is...a period of darkness and light; one day. One rotation of the earth...one day. Six rotations of earth and creation was completed.

The only flat-earthed I ever met was a man who knew his Bible better than me

Then obviously it was wrong for you to generalize based on your experience of 1 person.