7-Day Creation- Figurative or Literal?

[RickG]

Collin Patterson - Senior Paleontologist - British Museum of Natural History -- evolutionist, atheist, devotee offers this frank analysis of the problem in blind-faith evolutionism.

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

Bob, I am not familiar with Collin Patterson but I can assure you that one person does not encompass the findings of the greater scientific community. Nevertheless, I will look at what he has to say.

Again, I caution you about using the term "blind faith evolutionism". It is nothing more than belittlement of a very robust well supported science whether you agree with the findings or not. Let's stick to the science.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I am not familiar with Collin Patterson but I can assure you that one person does not encompass the findings of the greater scientific community. Nevertheless, I will look at what he has to say.

Again, I caution you about using the term "blind faith evolutionism". It is nothing more than belittlement of a very robust well supported science whether you agree with the findings or not. Let's stick to the science.

Patterson's lament was about the apparent lack of science in methods employed by those who believe in evolutionism.

We see how this played out in actual history with the example of Osborn's "Nebraska Man" and Marsh's "Horse series" (still on display at the Smithsonian) and with Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" presentations and the more recent "Neanderthal fraud" -- religion of that sort is rife with proven fraud and hoax.

In what real science - what hard science - can we ever expect a group of experts in the field to gather and to think to ask the question
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

Only to get the answer "I know it ought not to be taught in high school"????

Does Physics or Chemistry come to mind? I think not.

Observable Biology also does not fall into that mythology category - it too is proven hard science. The speaker was very careful to ask specifically about evolution.

In "bad religion" of the evolutionism type - there is the maxim "all news is good news" and so as devastating as that talk was for evolutionists - there has always been an effort to spin it as "good news".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But in the case of this thread the question is about the Bible and the Bible 7-day Creation week. This is not about trying to bend the Bible to fit the usages of evolutionism.

Christians here at CF ought to all be able to master the objectivity required to admit what the actual text says.

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

According to God's Word - the Bible- it was done in 7 real days - the same kind of real day with one "evening and morning" ending with the 7th day - Gen 2:1-3 blessed, sanctified and set apart. "Made for mankind" Mark 2:27

The same kind of real day as "Six days you shall labor and do all your work...for in six DAYs the Lord MADE" Ex 20:8-11. -- legal code.


[FONT=&quot]Exod 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
8 ""[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Remember [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Six days you[/FONT][FONT=&quot] shall labor and do all your work,
10 but [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in it[/FONT][FONT=&quot] you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11 "" [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For in six days[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the LORD [/FONT][FONT=&quot]made[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]rested on the seventh day[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; therefore the LORD [/FONT][FONT=&quot]blessed the Sabbath day[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and made it holy.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gen 2 (NASB)

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He [/FONT][FONT=&quot]rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
3 Then [/FONT][FONT=&quot]God blessed the seventh day and sanctified[/FONT][FONT=&quot] it, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]because [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.[/FONT]

 

[CabVet]

Patterson's lament was about the apparent lack of science in methods employed by those who believe in evolutionism.

What is "evolutionism"? Your attempt to make it sound more like creationism?

In what real science - what hard science - can we ever expect a group of experts in the field to gather and to think to ask the question
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

Only to get the answer "I know it ought not to be taught in high school"????

Does Physics or Chemistry come to mind? I think not.

You forgot to say in what planet that is all taking place. It must not be on Planet Earth.

 

[RickG]

Patterson's lament was about the apparent lack of science in methods employed by those who believe in evolutionism.

We see how this played out in actual history with the example of Osborn's "Nebraska Man" and Marsh's "Horse series" (still on display at the Smithsonian) and with Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" presentations and the more recent "Neanderthal fraud" -- religion of that sort is rife with proven fraud and hoax.

In what real science - what hard science - can we ever expect a group of experts in the field to gather and to think to ask the question
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

Only to get the answer "I know it ought not to be taught in high school"????

Does Physics or Chemistry come to mind? I think not.

Observable Biology also does not fall into that mythology category - it too is proven hard science. The speaker was very careful to ask specifically about evolution.

In "bad religion" of the evolutionism type - there is the maxim "all news is good news" and so as devastating as that talk was for evolutionists - there has always been an effort to spin it as "good news".

in Christ,

Bob

Well Bob, it didn't take me long to find out that the Patterson statement is nothing more than a "QUOTE MINE".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pattershttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.htmlhttp://on_%28paleontologist%29

I ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago when MySpace had its Forums. A person made a similar claim about also British Paleontologist, Henry Gee. Gee had written a book called In Search of Deep Time. In the course of the book he would play devils advocate and suggest what if. He would then proceed to discuss how the "what if" was incorrect and why evolution was a very robust and well supported theory. Nevertheless, creationists ceased on his "what if" portions and presented them as if he was a paleontologist against evolution. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Henry Gee along with Colin Patterson are pioneers of cladistics. In fact, I have read Henry Gee's book. What was so bewildering to me was that the person I was exchanging posts with on MySpace actually understood the Henry Gee was being quote mined, but continued to dismiss it and say, "well he said it". What kind of person admits that it is a quote mine but still dismiss it? Here is Henry Gee's actual rebuttal in a National Center for Science Education (NCSE) document.

http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/NCSE_2001_PBS_Evolution_series.pdf

Scan down to page 22.

So yes, Colin Patterson did say what you posted. The truth is that it is taken out of context and presented to mean the exact opposite of the point he was making.

Do you understand the misrepresentation of the quote mine of both Patterson and Gee? Patterson to his dying day was an avid proponent of evolution theory and a pioneer Cladistics and in no way actually thought it lacked supporting evidence.

Remember the 9th commandment about bearing false witness. That is exactly what a quote mine is, a deliberate violation of the 9th commandment. Please do not get caught up in that kind of rhetoric. I do do ask you to believe in evolution, but I do ask you to realize when false information is being presented.

......in Christ, RickG

 

[RickG]

God spoke them into existence in their adult stage. This means there were trees with blooms and probably growth rings, fruit containing seeds, and an ecosystem scientists would proclaim took billions of years to happen. However, there were no scientists and no sun; but there WAS a source of light apart from the earth. We don't know how far away it was, but we DO know that when God said "Let there be light" it provided for the evenings and the mornings.

We know it didn't happen that way from the evidence that God left behind. I do not believe God to be a "trickster" which he would have to be if the Genesis creation story is to be if taken literal.

Excuse me? I believe we are reading different books. Nowhere in the Bible does it state anything like that. Scientists who were not there see the universe in its mature state and presume it took billions of years. Jesus who WAS there states that the Scriptures are accurate as written. You can choose who you want to believe, but until scientists walk on water cast out demons, calm storms and return from the dead, I think I'll believe the word of God.

The universe is known to be at least 13.7 billion years old through various methods that have been proven to be reliable many times over. Additionally the Earth is known to be at least 4.54 billion years old also through several very reliable and independent methods.

Again, I do not think God would have anything to gain by being a trickster. If he created everything, he left the evidence behind for us to uncover. Perhaps bible literalists should consider that the Genesis story of creation is either not literal, rather a story about creation, or not scripture at all.

It works for those of us who understand that you can't use natural law to explain the supernatural. If God can create the universe, He doesn't have to read a science book to know how to do it. Science is the study of the physical world around us. In cannot study nor account for the supernatural. They are entirely different. God created Adam and Eve as adults; fully grown and able to speak. If you met Adam on his first day of existence, how old would he be? Could an adult man standing in front of you possibly be less than 12 hours old?

If God created everything, he also created the laws of physics which he would use.

No, I think it's better to have faith in God and know that His word is truth. Science is good at interpreting the world as it is. It has no way of accounting for a God who could create an entire universe just by telling it to exist.

I find it quite interesting that creationists say science claims everything came from nothing, which science does not do; but creationism in fact does.

Do you realize that until very recently there was a missing link in the laws of physics. Scientists could not explain how matter obtained mass. It was hypothesized that there was a sub-atomic particle (Higgs-Boson) that would explain the problem. That particle has now been confirmed filling that gap and making the laws of physics stronger than ever.

 

[Dieselman]

We know it didn't happen that way from the evidence that God left behind. I do not believe God to be a "trickster" which he would have to be if the Genesis creation story is to be if taken literal.

Oh, I get it. If YOU misinterpret the evidence then obviously God was being deceitful. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that people seek desperately to find a natural explanation for something that happened in defiance of natural law, now could it?

The universe is known to be at least 13.7 billion years old through various methods that have been proven to be reliable many times over.

Known to whom? Were you there? Jesus was there and He believed that the Scriptures were accurate.

Mark12:
24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?

He believed that God (His father) dictated the Torah to Moses.
Luke 24:
27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Matthew 24:
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Additionally the Earth is known to be at least 4.54 billion years old also through several very reliable and independent methods.

Again, known to whom? I think if the son of God were aware of this tidbit of information He would have shared it.

Again, I do not think God would have anything to gain by being a trickster.

But false prophets seek to bask in their own "wisdom" and proclaim themselves wise.

If he created everything, he left the evidence behind for us to uncover.

...And misinterpret because you put your faith in the sceince of this world and not the Creator of this world.

If God created everything, he also created the laws of physics which he would use.

Why would He? He is not constrained by such laws.

I find it quite interesting that creationists say science claims everything came from nothing, which science does not do; but creationism in fact does.

Either everything came from nothing or matter is eternal. Either premise is invalidated by natural law. There is NO viable scientific explanation for origination.

Do you realize that until very recently there was a missing link in the laws of physics. Scientists could not explain how matter obtained mass. It was hypothesized that there was a sub-atomic particle (Higgs-Boson) that would explain the problem. That particle has now been confirmed filling that gap and making the laws of physics stronger than ever.

Yep. I read all about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, I get it. If YOU misinterpret the evidence then obviously God was being deceitful. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that people seek desperately to find a natural explanation for something that happened in defiance of natural law, now could it?

What natural laws have to be broken in order for radiometric dating to be accurate? What natural laws have to be broken in order for the geologic record to have been produced over a 4.5 billion year history?

Known to whom? Were you there? Jesus was there and He believed that the Scriptures were accurate.

The map is not the territory.

If a map says that there should be a 10,000 foot mountain 1 mile ahead of you, but there is nothing but flat ground what is wrong? Reality or the map?

If the Bible makes false claims about reality who is wrong? The Bible or reality? Same concept.

Either everything came from nothing or matter is eternal. Either premise is invalidated by natural law. There is NO viable scientific explanation for origination.

Or matter came from something that is not matter. In fact, that happens all of the time in particle accelerators. Mass is often created in these reactions as energy is condensed into matter.

 

[Dieselman]

What natural laws have to be broken in order for radiometric dating to be accurate?

You have no way of knowing the original state of the isotope. You have no way of knowing the nature of the environmental conditions and whether they were static. You cannot account for trees that were created intact or sand that was never rock. You cannot account for the origination of anything you are measuring.

What natural laws have to be broken in order for the geologic record to have been produced over a 4.5 billion year history?

Whoever suggested that natural law had anything to do with creation?

If the Bible makes false claims about reality who is wrong? The Bible or reality?

Who has more credibility, your science teacher or God?

Or matter came from something that is not matter. In fact, that happens all of the time in particle accelerators. Mass is often created in these reactions as energy is condensed into matter.

Did you miss the day when the rest of your science class learned that matter and energy are convertible? You DO realize that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, only their form may be changed, right?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I am not familiar with Collin Patterson but I can assure you that one person does not encompass the findings of the greater scientific community. Nevertheless, I will look at what he has to say.

Again, I caution you about using the term "blind faith evolutionism". It is nothing more than belittlement of a very robust well supported science whether you agree with the findings or not. Let's stick to the science.

Patterson's lament was about the apparent lack of science in methods employed by those who believe in evolutionism.

We see how this played out in actual history with the example of Osborn's "Nebraska Man" and Marsh's "Horse series" (still on display at the Smithsonian) and with Haeckle's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" presentations and the more recent "Neanderthal fraud" -- religion of that sort is rife with proven fraud and hoax.

In what real science - what hard science - can we ever expect a group of experts in the field to gather and to think to ask the question
“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

Only to get the answer "I know it ought not to be taught in high school"????

Does Physics or Chemistry come to mind? I think not.

Observable Biology also does not fall into that mythology category - it too is proven hard science. The speaker was very careful to ask specifically about evolution.

In "bad religion" of the evolutionism type - there is the maxim "all news is good news" and so as devastating as that talk was for evolutionists - there has always been an effort to spin it as "good news".

Well Bob, it didn't take me long to find out that the Patterson statement is nothing more than a "QUOTE MINE".

hmm m- so you confirmed that this is a verbatim quote based on a full audio copy of the talk by "Patterson".

Is that supposed to "help" evolutionism in some way?

If so - you failed to show it.

Gee had written a book called In Search of Deep Time. In the course of the book he would play devils advocate and suggest what if.

you forget this is not a "play devil's advocate" (all news is good news) talk by Patterson.

Patterson later defends his hammering of evolutionism - saying that science demands a critical approach, instead of "just kidding -- never mind".

And of course Eldredge's reaction is "instructive" for one not devoted to "all news is good news".

Here is a report from one of the attendees -

[FONT=&quot]I was sitting in the front row next to an AMNH (American Museum of Natural Hist) curator of mammals, Karl Koopman, who, obviously very agitated kept slamming his pencil down in front of him. Niles Eldredge in the Department of Invertebrates at AMNH was standing by the left wall (as one looks toward the speaker). Beside Eldredge stood a high school biology teacher, Roy Slingo, from the prestigious Scarsdale NY district. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Slingo later informed me that at one stage of the talk Niles Eldredge (well known for his anti-creationist perspective) grabbed his forehead and slid down the wall proclaiming, "My G__, how can he be doing this to us."[/FONT]

Oh no wait!! That is also "good news" for evolutionism -- I keep for getting!

All of it "good news" - err... umm... because TalkOrigins is using terms like "quote mine" (having nothing at all to prove that accusation - Talk Origins simply "makes the accusation anyway" because it sounds good) and that is all the proof we need - that it was all "good news".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I find it quite interesting that creationists say science claims everything came from nothing, which science does not do; but creationism in fact does.

Creationism "does not say" that everything came from Nothing - rather they say that it came from God and without Him nothing was made - that was "made".

I find it quite interesting that the Creationist says that a rock cannot drive a car -- but then creationists claim that in fact humans can.

(I think that sort of argument is supposed to mean something good for evolutionism - in some evolutionist circles)

 

[Jamin4422]

We know it didn't happen that way from the evidence that God left behind. I do not believe God to be a "trickster" which he would have to be if the Genesis creation story is to be if taken literal.

It's really very simple. One day is 1000 years. If you look at Science and the Bible that way everything lines up just fine for a literal understanding. Even if you allow what is known in Science to explain the Bible.

 

[AECellini]

It's really very simple. One day is 1000 years. If you look at Science and the Bible that way everything lines up just fine for a literal understanding. Even if you allow what is known in Science to explain the Bible.

how would that line up with science? in the big bang timeline there wasn't an earth or life in the first 6000 years

 

[RickG]

Creationism "does not say" that everything came from Nothing - rather they say that it came from God and without Him nothing was made - that was "made".

I did not say creationism, I said creationists. Speaking things into existance is something from nothing. Actually it is magic.

 

[Phileas]

I did not say creationism, I said creationists. Speaking things into existance is something from nothing. Actually it is magic.

I once spoke a punch and a black eye into existance through wise cracking to a bully when I was 10. Does this fit with creationist models?

 

[RickG]

It's really very simple. One day is 1000 years. If you look at Science and the Bible that way everything lines up just fine for a literal understanding. Even if you allow what is known in Science to explain the Bible.

I see you have never done the math.


365 x 1000 x 6000= 2,190.000,000

Age of Earth = 4,540,000,000


Known science conflicts with Genesis. Also consider the context of 2 Peter 3:8.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

Is the passage not speaking of time in heaven with the lord? It certainly is not speaking about the Genesis creation story.

 

[RickG]

Oh, I get it. If YOU misinterpret the evidence then obviously God was being deceitful.

The physical evidence has been arrived at through many independent means which all agree. There is no misinterpretation of the evidence.

Either God is a deceitful trickster or the Genesis creation story is a story about creation, not literal fact.

Why would God create the earth in 6 days but leave evidence of 4.54 billion years?

 

[Jamin4422]

how would that line up with science? in the big bang timeline there wasn't an earth or life in the first 6000 years

If you want to talk about the Big Bang that would be OEC. OEC was developed by the same people that give us geology today. According to Gerald Schroeder The Big Bang goes back to Rabbi Nahmanides. Philosopher, physician, kabbalist & Bible commentator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CataloniaFrom there the theory is said to be a part of the Oral traditions going back to Moses. Even though the Big Bang started out a religious theory, it got developed into a a scientific theory by various people over the years. Like Hubble. The theory was opposed by Hoyle, but he gave it the current name. Of course Max Planck contributed quite a bit to the theory.

 

[RickG]

Known to whom? Were you there?

The greater scientific community. The evidence is verifiable and consistent. No one needed to be there, God left the evidence.

 

[jpcedotal]

morning and evening means a literal day to me