Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)

[Kenny'sID]

is to use someone's acknowledgment that they cant find the transitional fossils.

Who's the "someone else" you're getting your info from?

also, get us back on track here, what was the point you were defending?

 

[Colter]

Who's the "someone else" you're getting your info from?

also, get us back on track here, what was the point you were defending?

Its in Bobs post, he has reposted it a bunch of times on multiple threads

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:.....

I'm defending old earth and the evolution of life found in the fossil records against the theory of a singular YEC event 6,000 years ago found in the Hebrews racial history story.

 

[Colter]

 

[Kenny'sID]

The "someone else" is in Bob's post? Just tell me who...it's a pretty simple question.

I'm defending old earth and the evolution of life found in the fossil records against the theory of a singular YEC event 6,000 years ago found in the Hebrews racial history story.

Can you show me the fossil record that proves that what you are defending is correct?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why do you keep posting that picture?

 

[AV1611VET]

This passage is easy.

Indeed.

Genesis 2 is a frame narrative.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm confused. You seem to be saying you get your info from Colin Patterson, the same guy who said this...

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

Yet you also say this about the same person you seem to be saying you got your info from,...Patterson, the guy who supports your claims...

You keep recycling the same straw man. You have NO EXPLANATION for the very presence of a multitude of fossils within many layers laid down over many ages compared to the Hebrews "blind faith" YEC, creation. Rather your avoidance, move the goalpost technique, is to use someone's acknowledgment that they cant find the transitional fossils.

You don't seem that flaky so, I have to assume I'm missing something.

And on a side note, why are you even commenting it's a problem to use someone else' knowledge?...you have to know you are doing just that.

 

[ScottA]

True the Holy Spirit speaks - but notice in Hebrews 3 "The Holy Spirit says" -- when quoting the Psalms -

6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.
7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,

David prays "create in me a clean heart o God... take not your Holy Spirit from me"

Yet it was still true that God's thoughts are infinitely higher than ours. To this very day.

So then, we can either stand back or step up. But speaking ourselves remains of low stature, while giving place to the Holy Spirit, we too can hear Him and be One, used by Him.

 

[ScottA]

I'm a witness to those same things as well yet you and I disagree. Where do we go from here?

It is one thing to be a witness, but in order to do Him service, we cannot teach or assume a position that does not completely agree with every word of scripture.

 

[Colter]

I'm confused. You seem to be saying you get your info from Colin Patterson, the same guy who said this...



Yet you also say this about the same person you seem to be saying you got your info from,...Patterson, the guy who supports your claims...



You don't seem that flaky so, I have to assume I'm missing something.

And on a side note, why are you even commenting it's a problem to use someone else' knowledge?...you have to know you are doing just that.

 

[Colter]

I'm confused. You seem to be saying you get your info from Colin Patterson, the same guy who said this...



Yet you also say this about the same person you seem to be saying you got your info from,...Patterson, the guy who supports your claims...



You don't seem that flaky so, I have to assume I'm missing something.

And on a side note, why are you even commenting it's a problem to use someone else' knowledge?...you have to know you are doing just that.

Yes, you are confused. I answered you in post #542, you asked who the "someone else" was that I was referring to. The answer is --------->"Collin Patterson", Bob keeps quoting Patterson. I don't quote Patterson. Bob doesn't answer my specific points, he obfuscates by discussing a missing link between one age of fossil to another. I'm simply talking about the fact the existence of the fossils in many ages, NOT a link!

 

[BobRyan]

Allow me to illustrate --

"stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist

Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history


On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:


April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
======================================================

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say thatI should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

============================

It's not "junk science" to sincere truth seekers. ..
It is a fact that the fossil record deposited over many different ages show signs of diverse life that lived at different times. That alone, without evolutionary speculation contradicts the Hebrews guesswork in Genesis.

I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

You keep recycling the same straw man.

Irrefutable posts that you find "inconvenient" do not vanish each time you fail to refute them.

This may come as a surprise to some evolutionists.

In this case it is Your own diehard atheist evolutionist scientist - giving the "evidence" that you find "inconvenient".

IN blind faith evolutionism "all news is good news" and when you find something that is not good news - and you can't refute it ... shoot the messenger??

 

[BobRyan]

Bob is constitutionally incapable of addressing why there is NO evidence of a singular YEC event. To the contrary, the earth contains with it the evidence of a very long past with many kinds of plants and animals.

Christians do expect the flood to have produced a lot of fossils -- as it turns out.

And as for the stories 'easy enough to make up' being told about the fossil record --

I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,

3. And why in the world would rapid deposition in flood and mud of a single generation of animals going through mass extinction at the flood - not produce a vast amount of fossil remains?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Don't forget scripture must be interpreted by context as well as words. Gen 1 gives the overview of creation and the chronology of it. Gen 2 focuses on man and some other items left,out of the overview. God does not contradict himself so the easy explanation is God was reiterating the fact that he created the animals. Why would God try and reexplain himself? God doesn't have to say in Gen 2 "I created animals on day whatever and the birds on day whatever and the fish on day whatever and brought them t o,man to name" He's already told us what day they were created. He was pointing out in Gen 2 the difference between men and animals. Which is a DIRECT contradiction to evolution. The fact that man named all the creatures after his creation directly flys in the face of evolution.

This passage is easy.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

See? A non-literal explanation. "God was reiterating the fact that he created the animals". That's not what it says! It says

Gen 2:18-20 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
NASU

So you re-interpret scripture to suit your own ideas of what it really must mean. We watch you do it here before our very eyes. You deny the literal meaning of the words.

Hey, how come you guys critisize ME for doing exactly that when I try to do it? After all, I have merely extended my ideas of what God has communicated to us to include what He made in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, and those are truly direct words from God.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How many times here have I said, "Now you know one of the reasons I'm a KJVO"?

If he's truly curious, he can Google why people are KJVO.

But it's easier to accuse me of having no reason(s) for my faith, isn't it?

Are you saying you merely have exactly the same reasons all the other people have fore being KJV? Well that makes it easy, now I know its because you are a member of a group that uses the KJV only doctrine as a key identification factor to be able to tell members of the group apart from outsiders to the group. A very useful item, and having that usage explains why its there, but . . . . that doesn't mean its true, you know.

 

[BobRyan]

So you re-interpret scripture to suit your own ideas of what it really must mean. We watch you do it here before our very eyes. You deny the literal meaning of the words.

Hey, how come you guys critisize ME for doing exactly that when I try to do it?

Already addressed here --

Ex 20:8-11. This thread is about the legal code that we find there.

In that legal code - God Himself is speaking - and He says "six days YOU shall labor... for in SIX Days the LORD made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them."

Colte - at least "admits" to the contradiction -- as did Darwin admit to it, and so also does Dawkins, P.Z. Meyers etc.

you are sticking with 'creationists can't read' - as if that is believable.

So fine then we turn to - the atheist/agnostic professors for Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities. Let's hear what they have to say.
=====================================

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, how come you guys critisize ME for doing exactly that when I try to do it? After all, I have merely extended my ideas of what God has communicated to us to include what He made in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes, and those are truly direct words from God.

How many times was Adam put into the Garden in Genesis 2?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

[Colter]

The "someone else" is in Bob's post? Just tell me who...it's a pretty simple question.



Can you show me the fossil record that proves that what you are defending is correct?

You will need to do your own research and learn about fossils and the age of the earth. There are many books and free sites on the net.

 

[BobRyan]

See? A non-literal explanation. "God was reiterating the fact that he created the animals". That's not what it says! It says

Gen 2:18-20 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
NASU

As already pointed out - Gen 1:2-2:4 is a time-boxed chronological account of creation - but Gen 2:5-end merely adds details that fit into that existing framework.

Gen 1 - day six mankind is created. And Adam names animals that were formed prior to God creating Eve - on that same day - day 6.

the Hebrew verb translated “formed” is correctly translated “had formed.” as stated in Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold:

NIV - Gen 2:19 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

2. Shall we remind ourselves that stories from the fossil record about how one thing came from another "are not science" even by your own atheist scientist's POV? (Because when you start telling those stories "easy enough to make up" as Patterson said - you get to wild claims about fictions that "never happened in nature" as has been confirmed in the case of the horse series example.

Lets get it straight what happened with the horse series. There was no disproof of evolution with further fossil finds. Rather, we found so many fossils that tracing an exact path for evolution between them was difficult because there were multiple possibilities that seemed plausible, and so one cannot be sure which path was the actual path.

This is not a valid argument against evolution. It is support for evolution.