I think I missed the part where you gave warrant for reading Mk.10:6 the way you do. It seems to me that you're simply refusing to read it the YEC way. But at least you've moved on from saying "I just don't understand the YEC argument from this verse." Thanks for sticking it out for the long debate.
Thanks for the comment. There are two reasons for why I read Mark 10 the way I do. First, is my opening arguments of the debate. I gave clear arguments as to why there was Earth, water, and darkness that preexisted the first day of the six days of creation. Therefore, appealing to the beginning is a statement about the beginning of the six days of creation. Therefore, if my first arguments are correct the six-day creation account doesn't include anything prior to that. Mark 10 then says nothing about the age of the Earth. It is the Young Earth proponent that is assuming that the beginning being referred to is the beginning of all time but in order for them to prove that they need to address my argument in my opening statement.
Last note about Adams intro. "Old Earth" here seems to be appealing to a more general application. IE older than 6-10k years. Without a definite date or at least range to be defended.. It isn't really a "scientific" claim at all. Science does not support an "old earth", it is going to make claims to specific dates, times and ranges and then we consider them old or young. So in the intro, focus was on Pre-day one age of the earth being the source of the "oldness". But the description of this is not supported by science. Science doesn't claim that the earth was formless and void for millions of years. My point is, I am not seeing a good connection between the claim of science and fitting that in the bible. -No evidence for young earth- The first is the eyewitness testimony. So discounting the bible is really just to throw out evidence without justification. Requiring pure scientific evidence is also unjustified because science is not the only field that would apply and may not be the best field anyway. As science must be testable and repeatable. Bottom line, science has not been really good at the "repeatable" portion of age claims. The age claims of science are almost all extrapolations, and often unprovable ones.
@40:00 Adam addresses if Adam was created "In the beginning". Then applies a very specific literal understanding of that, IE "on day 1? Certainly not." The problem is, if the universe is in fact billions of years old before Adam was created, there is no sense in which Adam was created "in the beginning". This leads to my issue of "margin of error". If something is within the margin of error, we consider it correct (making really just a margin of imprecision. The problem is things like "in the beginning" are far outside any margin of error if the world is billions of years old. This applies also to the "Moon dust" point. That the idea of the :"best" evidence for a "young" earth is one of 700k to 1m years. Which adam says is inconsistent with a young earth model. But that evidence is really much more in line with a young earth than one of billions of years. In reality, we have a bunch of extrapolated data points. None of which agree on a specific age, but rather lend to wildly varying ranges. With no control group and no ability to repeat the process.So moon dust is interesting but it isn't a clock. So we shouldn't treat it as one.
2 corections: For those who dont read greek, the word used for man is ἀνθρώπους, which means human kind. Paul say a ἀνθρώπους The same word used in Matthew when he says "Man shall not live by bread alone". I dont think he's referring to animals, and he is including women in that verse! So hovinds intreptations in incorrect. Second Romans 5 is talking about spiritual death To make the point clearer, the emtire point of Romans 5 is about spiritual life in Christ. Lets look at Romans 8 Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. Yet you still die if you mortify the deeds of the body? No, because it's not talking about physical death.
@9:20ish Adam puts forward the idea that there was some material before creation started. As I understand it "formless and void" phrase is translating Hebrew that means nothing. It is not a claim to substance existing, but a description of Nothing. Also there is supposed to be a whole lot of Jewish writing on the idea how how nothing the nothing was. I am no Hebrew Scholar, so I can't speak to it. But i think this point Adam is making is coming from a misunderstanding and a deviation of the text and especially how it has been understood for a long time.
Thanks for the comments. I'm afraid you're a mistaken about the formless and void being nothing. Rather it is more so the idea of chaos and desolate. The exact same phrase is used in Jeremiah 4:23. Unless you're trying to say that nothing existed during the times of Jeremiah, cannot consistently say that it meant there was nothing during Genesis 1. Also the text is quite clear and that same passage in Genesis 1 that the spirit hovered over the waters. The waters are not nothing. Nowhere in the text does it say that God created the waters nor the earth but only separated them. If that's the case then it does show pre-existing material and the terms void and formless do not describe nothing.
@@curiouschristianity "Chaos" yes.. that is the word. But the idea is that there is nothing (void/empty) and everything has to be created. As to "pre-existing", all that is called void, and formless was created. It was created on the first day, as 1:1-1:5 is day 1, and called day 1. God did not say he created atoms, or electrons, or gravity etc. So to point out that it doesn't say God created water is a very weak point, as it is easily understood as being called "earth".. or "heaven". Loosely it is God creating space and matter. What is not implied is a long period of time, again... because it is called a day. What you are forced to read is "in the beginning, the earth was billions of years old.. but needed work". You are incorrect to say "nowhere does it say God created the waters nor the earth". Because Gen 1:1 specifically says God created the Heavens and earth. Still, none of this indicates an old earth, because this is all day 1 stuff. If one asks at Gen 1:5, "how old is the heaven and earth and how long has light existed and night?" .. How can one answer anything but "1 day"? But I have a confusion. What are you arguing exactly? That Pre-day 1.. something without form and void was billions of years old? Because so far the description doesn't support any "naturalist scientific" model. What model are you mapping the data onto?
@@mindtrap0289I believe there is some confusion here. First, my arguments show why Gen 1:1-2 are not part of day one. For some reason no one ever addresses my arguments. So until they are addressed I will assume that they are valid. Therefore, there is preexisting matter prior to day one. I hear it asserted a lot that day one means it is the first day of all creation. What is the argument for that? You cannot simply say it is the first day. You have to give evidence that it is the first day of all of creation. So far no one has presented any they merely assume it. The pre day one is talking about the Earth being void and formless. It specifically says the "EARTH" is formless and void. Therefore, the text is not ambiguous but undeniably clear that the Earth exists. The Earth existed prior to "God said let there be light" but it is unclear as to how long it existed prior therefore there is no clear age of the Earth according to the Bible.
Can you point me to any peer reviewed scientific paper that attempts to prove the young age of the earth that is published in any reputable scientific journal?
@OhMyJoshy No one knows what Time is yet old earth fundamentaly assumes that Time is an actual physical entity. Do you know any peer review paper confirming Time to be an actual thing?! A young earth notion of Time doesn't have this problem. Time is a construct of the mind (human mind) and therefore all age must not be older than mankind. Simple.
Both of you are wrong on animal death or immortality. Death came by Adam, not only for mankind but also for animals; not only living things but also non living things. Paul affirms this in Rom 8
@curiouschristianity Rom 8 implies that the death curse doesn't only affect all living things but ALL creation; whereas the things that are living are affected by death, the non living are affected by decay (their version of death) but all that will be redeemed through the revelation of the children of God. Why? Because creation happens in the hearts of men. If men fall, all creation falls and if men are redeemed, all creation is redeemed too.
Eating requires death and decay. Adam and Eve were told to eat fruit and the animals were supposed to eat the green leafy things. All of this before the fall.
Adam point #2 - Regarding animal death.. I agree with him. ending around @19:00
I think I missed the part where you gave warrant for reading Mk.10:6 the way you do. It seems to me that you're simply refusing to read it the YEC way.
But at least you've moved on from saying "I just don't understand the YEC argument from this verse."
Thanks for sticking it out for the long debate.
Thanks for the comment. There are two reasons for why I read Mark 10 the way I do. First, is my opening arguments of the debate. I gave clear arguments as to why there was Earth, water, and darkness that preexisted the first day of the six days of creation. Therefore, appealing to the beginning is a statement about the beginning of the six days of creation. Therefore, if my first arguments are correct the six-day creation account doesn't include anything prior to that. Mark 10 then says nothing about the age of the Earth. It is the Young Earth proponent that is assuming that the beginning being referred to is the beginning of all time but in order for them to prove that they need to address my argument in my opening statement.
Last note about Adams intro. "Old Earth" here seems to be appealing to a more general application. IE older than 6-10k years. Without a definite date or at least range to be defended.. It isn't really a "scientific" claim at all. Science does not support an "old earth", it is going to make claims to specific dates, times and ranges and then we consider them old or young. So in the intro, focus was on Pre-day one age of the earth being the source of the "oldness". But the description of this is not supported by science. Science doesn't claim that the earth was formless and void for millions of years. My point is, I am not seeing a good connection between the claim of science and fitting that in the bible.
-No evidence for young earth-
The first is the eyewitness testimony. So discounting the bible is really just to throw out evidence without justification.
Requiring pure scientific evidence is also unjustified because science is not the only field that would apply and may not be the best field anyway. As science must be testable and repeatable.
Bottom line, science has not been really good at the "repeatable" portion of age claims. The age claims of science are almost all extrapolations, and often unprovable ones.
@40:00 Adam addresses if Adam was created "In the beginning". Then applies a very specific literal understanding of that, IE "on day 1? Certainly not." The problem is, if the universe is in fact billions of years old before Adam was created, there is no sense in which Adam was created "in the beginning".
This leads to my issue of "margin of error". If something is within the margin of error, we consider it correct (making really just a margin of imprecision. The problem is things like "in the beginning" are far outside any margin of error if the world is billions of years old. This applies also to the "Moon dust" point. That the idea of the :"best" evidence for a "young" earth is one of 700k to 1m years. Which adam says is inconsistent with a young earth model.
But that evidence is really much more in line with a young earth than one of billions of years.
In reality, we have a bunch of extrapolated data points. None of which agree on a specific age, but rather lend to wildly varying ranges. With no control group and no ability to repeat the process.So moon dust is interesting but it isn't a clock. So we shouldn't treat it as one.
2 corections:
For those who dont read greek, the word used for man is ἀνθρώπους, which means human kind.
Paul say a ἀνθρώπους
The same word used in Matthew when he says "Man shall not live by bread alone".
I dont think he's referring to animals, and he is including women in that verse!
So hovinds intreptations in incorrect.
Second Romans 5 is talking about spiritual death
To make the point clearer, the emtire point of Romans 5 is about spiritual life in Christ.
Lets look at Romans 8
Romans 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Yet you still die if you mortify the deeds of the body?
No, because it's not talking about physical death.
@9:20ish Adam puts forward the idea that there was some material before creation started. As I understand it "formless and void" phrase is translating Hebrew that means nothing. It is not a claim to substance existing, but a description of Nothing. Also there is supposed to be a whole lot of Jewish writing on the idea how how nothing the nothing was. I am no Hebrew Scholar, so I can't speak to it. But i think this point Adam is making is coming from a misunderstanding and a deviation of the text and especially how it has been understood for a long time.
Thanks for the comments. I'm afraid you're a mistaken about the formless and void being nothing. Rather it is more so the idea of chaos and desolate. The exact same phrase is used in Jeremiah 4:23. Unless you're trying to say that nothing existed during the times of Jeremiah, cannot consistently say that it meant there was nothing during Genesis 1. Also the text is quite clear and that same passage in Genesis 1 that the spirit hovered over the waters. The waters are not nothing. Nowhere in the text does it say that God created the waters nor the earth but only separated them. If that's the case then it does show pre-existing material and the terms void and formless do not describe nothing.
@@curiouschristianity "Chaos" yes.. that is the word. But the idea is that there is nothing (void/empty) and everything has to be created. As to "pre-existing", all that is called void, and formless was created. It was created on the first day, as 1:1-1:5 is day 1, and called day 1. God did not say he created atoms, or electrons, or gravity etc. So to point out that it doesn't say God created water is a very weak point, as it is easily understood as being called "earth".. or "heaven". Loosely it is God creating space and matter. What is not implied is a long period of time, again... because it is called a day.
What you are forced to read is "in the beginning, the earth was billions of years old.. but needed work".
You are incorrect to say "nowhere does it say God created the waters nor the earth". Because Gen 1:1 specifically says God created the Heavens and earth. Still, none of this indicates an old earth, because this is all day 1 stuff. If one asks at Gen 1:5, "how old is the heaven and earth and how long has light existed and night?" .. How can one answer anything but "1 day"?
But I have a confusion. What are you arguing exactly? That Pre-day 1.. something without form and void was billions of years old? Because so far the description doesn't support any "naturalist scientific" model. What model are you mapping the data onto?
@@mindtrap0289I believe there is some confusion here. First, my arguments show why Gen 1:1-2 are not part of day one. For some reason no one ever addresses my arguments. So until they are addressed I will assume that they are valid. Therefore, there is preexisting matter prior to day one. I hear it asserted a lot that day one means it is the first day of all creation. What is the argument for that? You cannot simply say it is the first day. You have to give evidence that it is the first day of all of creation. So far no one has presented any they merely assume it.
The pre day one is talking about the Earth being void and formless. It specifically says the "EARTH" is formless and void. Therefore, the text is not ambiguous but undeniably clear that the Earth exists. The Earth existed prior to "God said let there be light" but it is unclear as to how long it existed prior therefore there is no clear age of the Earth according to the Bible.
The statement 'there's no young earth science' is itself unscientific.
There's no proven science of Time either, only assumptions which are errouniously projected as old age.
Can you point me to any peer reviewed scientific paper that attempts to prove the young age of the earth that is published in any reputable scientific journal?
@OhMyJoshy No one knows what Time is yet old earth fundamentaly assumes that Time is an actual physical entity. Do you know any peer review paper confirming Time to be an actual thing?!
A young earth notion of Time doesn't have this problem. Time is a construct of the mind (human mind) and therefore all age must not be older than mankind. Simple.
I would also like to know if there is any peer reviewed material that concludes the earth is young.
@@Mooseouma you would be more honest if you just said that you're not going to answer questions
Both of you are wrong on animal death or immortality. Death came by Adam, not only for mankind but also for animals; not only living things but also non living things. Paul affirms this in Rom 8
How do you get animal death from Romans 8? Since when did futility mean animals kill each other?
@curiouschristianity
Rom 8 implies that the death curse doesn't only affect all living things but ALL creation; whereas the things that are living are affected by death, the non living are affected by decay (their version of death) but all that will be redeemed through the revelation of the children of God.
Why? Because creation happens in the hearts of men. If men fall, all creation falls and if men are redeemed, all creation is redeemed too.
Eating requires death and decay. Adam and Eve were told to eat fruit and the animals were supposed to eat the green leafy things. All of this before the fall.
No it doesn't ... death came from Adam and spread to humans ... animals had been dying for billions of years before Adam existed ....