ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Franktalk]

One more edit..... On your evolution set size you are forgetting fitness. You can prune out whole branches of the problem space once you throw in fitness. Mutations that do not increase survivability quickly prune themselves out reducing the solution set size.

There are two possibilities, one is that the species has more offspring and many die. Some have estimated that humans need around fifty offspring with 49 of them dying off just to maintain the current genome, or you can have less offspring and defects gather like we see in the genome right now.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/177.full

"The high estimate of U has important implications for hominid evolution. Even our lower bound estimate of 3.0 deleterious mutations would lead to a mutational load (L) of 95% (i.e., the fraction of individuals that fail to contribute to the next generation) in hominids, assuming that fitness effects are multiplicative, and the mutational load is L = 1 − e − U (Kimura and Maruyama, 1966). Even if selection mostly occurs in the germline, it is difficult to envisage how such a high load could be tolerated by hominid populations, which have very low reproductive rates. Load could be reduced if mutations have synergistic epistatic interactions on fitness, leading to nonindependent elimination of mutations (Crow 2000)."

[_Chap]

It's calculated based on the generations given in the Old Testament. But you knew that.

So when you say, "The Bible says..." or "scripture says..." or something like that, you're just lying again. Because you really don't know the biblical record do you.

I see. Your point is something like 'The Bible does not say "The world was created in 4004 BC" '. Quite right.

On the other hand, the Bible does give a great deal of information on how long people lived, starting with Adam. From him there is (isn't there?) a continuous father to son lineage down to Solomon. You just have to add up the ages, and you know how long it was from the Creation to Solomon. If you use the ages in the Hebrew Bible you get about 3,000 years, if you use the longer ages in the Greek Septuagint you get about 4,500 years. Now the world in which Solomon's life is set is somewhere not far from 1,000 BC. So if we assume that (one or other versions of) the Bible is truthful, we have a bracket for the creation between about 4000 BC and 5,500 BC. For more detail, see HERE.

That is a gross mismatch with scientific estimates of the age of the earth, even scientific estimates from way back before people got to figures like 4.5 billion years. The Bible life lengths would have to be multiplied by a factor of about a million to get into the order of magnitude required.

So the Bible can't be true at the same time as the science behind those earth age estimates is true.

Do you admit that?

[_DrW]

It's calculated based on the generations given in the Old Testament. But you knew that.

So when you say, "The Bible says..." or "scripture says..." or something like that, you're just lying again. Because you really don't know the biblical record do you.

Whoa, Hoops.

Any reasonable interpretation of biblical record would lead one to conclude, based solely on the Bible, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Either the Earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is more than 10,000 years old. You only have two choices.

Most would agree that, according to the Bible, less than 10,000 years is the right choice. And hence one who claims that the Bible puts the age of the Earth at less than 10,000 years is certainly not lying.

Are you always like this?

[_Chap]

Are you always like this?

Whooa there! All you will get from Hoops in answer to that is pseudo-smart one-liner.

Wouldn't it be more interesting to hear Hoops respond to my question?

So the Bible can't be true at the same time as the science behind those earth age estimates is true.

Do you admit that?

Now that one is sure to elicit a careful and substantive reply.

[_Hoops]

So when you say, "The Bible says..." or "scripture says..." or something like that, you're just lying again. Because you really don't know the biblical record do you.

Whoa, Hoops.

Any reasonable interpretation of biblical record would lead one to conclude, based solely on the Bible, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Either the Earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is more than 10,000 years old. You only have two choices.

Most would agree that, according to the Bible, less than 10,000 years is the right choice. And hence one who claims that the Bible puts the age of the Earth at less than 10,000 years is certainly not lying.

Are you always like this?[/quote]
As usual, you've ginned the game. In true buffalo-esque fashion, you've plucked material from their home and used it where it is not intended. With the added delight of suppressing upon it your own interpretation.

What shall I do with "any" or "reasonable"? Nowhere does the Bible demand that the earth be 10,000 year's old. For you to criticize the biblical record, you first must KNOW WHAT IT IS. That's reasonable wouldn't you say?

[_DrW]

So when you say, "The Bible says..." or "scripture says..." or something like that, you're just lying again. Because you really don't know the biblical record do you.

Whoa, Hoops.

Any reasonable interpretation of biblical record would lead one to conclude, based solely on the Bible, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Either the Earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is more than 10,000 years old. You only have two choices.

Most would agree that, according to the Bible, less than 10,000 years is the right choice. And hence one who claims that the Bible puts the age of the Earth at less than 10,000 years is certainly not lying.

Are you always like this?

As usual, you've ginned the game. In true buffalo-esque fashion, you've plucked material from their home and used it where it is not intended. With the added delight of suppressing upon it your own interpretation.

What shall I do with "any" or "reasonable"? Nowhere does the Bible demand that the earth be 10,000 year's old. For you to criticize the biblical record, you first must KNOW WHAT IT IS. That's reasonable wouldn't you say?

Actually, I do not need to KNOW WHAT IT IS. I only need to know that the number, by any reasonable measure or determination, is less than 10,000 years. Most folks who believe the myths, legends and other nonsense in the Bible put the age of the Earth at 6,000 years (by the method described below, for example). Some folks extend this to 7,800 years (why I do not know, and definitely do not care).

If you believe that the age of the Earth, based on the biblical narrative, is more than 10,000 years, then I would suggest that you are the one who needs to provide the evidence for your claim, (and be ready to defend your claim against a large number of Evangelicals and other assorted creationists and Bible thumping religionists).

Biblical Age of Earth
by David V. Bassett, M.S.

Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 years. + 40 years., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.

From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.

From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.

From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.

Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.

From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].

The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.

Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years !! Mankind did not evolve 4 million years ago on an Earth which is 4.5 billion years old in a universe which was "big-banged" into existence 18-20 billion years in the distant past. Jesus Christ, the Creator Incarnate, said He made mankind male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6), and that when the heavens and the earth were commanded into being (Gen 1:1), they "stood up together" (Isa 48:13) not billions of years apart !!

http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm

[_Equality]

Either the Earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is more than 10,000 years old. You only have two choices.

Well, technically, it could be exactly 10,000 years old, which gives us a third option. ;-)

[_Chap]

You know, when I read Hoops' responses in this thread, I really think I know the Bible a lot better than she does.

Could she be a troll, intended to discredit Bible-believing Christians by making them look either mendacious or stupid?

[_DrW]

Either the Earth is less than 10,000 years old or it is more than 10,000 years old. You only have two choices.

Well, technically, it could be exactly 10,000 years old, which gives us a third option. ;-)

I disagree. Think about what "exactly 10,000 years old" really means. It implies precision to better than a year. (If my wedding took place "exactly" 10 years ago, for example, it is my anniversary and I had better show up tonight with flowers or at least a card.)

If one were to consider precision that was better than a year, then depending on what that precision was, the age of the Earth would change month by month, week by week or even day by day (by the example above, most would consider day by day precision to be adequate.).

So technically, the age of the Earth denoted by "exactly 10,000 years" changes every day (or every hour, or minute). Thus, "exactly 10,000 years" is not a very useful (or even practical) concept when discussing ten thousand years.

If you happen to be right when you tell me that the Earth is "exactly 10,000 years old" today, you will be wrong by tomorrow. ;-)

[_bcspace]

However, since the LDS Church is open to all science and truth, I don't see it holding to the traditional view in lieu of specific revelation on the subject as a problem. I don't see anyone getting ex'd or censured for expressing a disbelief in a geologically recent global flood or accepting evolution. I've personally expressed such over the pulpit and nothing untoward happened except I didn't get released from my calling.

Doctrine, bcspace, doctrine.

We need a call as to whether or not this post-deluge Earth-renting business can be considered doctrine as suggested by Truth Dancer above.

What say you?

Why or why not?

Thanks.

The global Flood is indeed official LDS doctrine for all the reasons Truth Dancer gave and I've never said otherwise. However, it's not a problem vis a vis science for all the reasons I've stated. In a nutshell, it boils down to the appearance that the Church will not allow science to drive official doctrine over traditional Christian thinking but it will allow science to drive a member's beliefs without censure where there is no modern revelation to back up tradition.