7-Day Creation- Figurative or Literal?

[Dieselman]

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?

Only if you're God.

 

[Split Rock]

morning and evening means a literal day to me

This is one of the few times I find myself in agreement with jp. For the purposes of the story, there is no reason to assume the intent was anything other than a standard 24 hr day. In addition, there was also likely an intent to support a 7 day week with the 7th day the Sabbath day.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is one of the few times I find myself in agreement with jp. For the purposes of the story, there is no reason to assume the intent was anything other than a standard 24 hr day. In addition, there was also likely an intent to support a 7 day week with the 7th day the Sabbath day.

You are a most refreshing person to converse with; I wish I was that way!

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

We can know these things. The present holds the evidence of past events. We know the state of those isotopes because of the crystal structure of rocks. We know the environmental conditions of the rocks from the chemical and physical characteristics of the rock. This is no different than a forensic scientist recreating a crime that happened in the past using evidence found in the present at a crime scene.

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

You did when you claimed that natural laws were broken.

Who has more credibility, your science teacher or God?

When did the Bible, and your interpretation of it, become God? Isn't that idolatry?

Right now, science has more credibility than creationists because science has the evidence on their side. Again, the map is not the territory. When evidence contradicts your claims then it is you that is wrong, not the evidence.

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?

Did you miss that day, because you seemed to miss that fact when you made this claim:

"Either everything came from nothing or matter is eternal."

 

[Split Rock]

You are a most refreshing person to converse with; I wish I was that way!

Maybe you should use me as a role model, then!

 

[RickG]

morning and evening means a literal day to me

I fully agree.

 

[RickG]

You have no way of knowing the original state of the isotope.

Dieselman, I have a strong academic background in physical earth science and and nearly 3 decades experience as a research chemist. Yes, we do have many ways of knowing the original state of isotopes. Those properties are well known.

 

[Dieselman]

Dieselman, I have a strong academic background in physical earth science and and nearly 3 decades experience as a research chemist. Yes, we do have many ways of knowing the original state of isotopes. Those properties are well known.

Excellent. In the interests of equal time, how much have you studied the Bible and how many years have you spent researching salvation?

Since you know the ORIGINAL state of isotopes. perhaps you can educate us as to how exactly an isotope can be created from nothing, and how that impacts the original state. In other words, when YOU speak an isotope into existence, is it at 100% integrity? Do you speak daughter isotopes into existence, or do you wait until the original isotope nears its half life?

 

[Guy1]

Excellent. In the interests of equal time, how much have you studied the Bible and how many years have you spent researching salvation?

Since you know the ORIGINAL state of isotopes. perhaps you can educate us as to how exactly an isotope can be created from nothing, and how that impacts the original state. In other words, when YOU speak an isotope into existence, is it at 100% integrity? Do you speak daughter isotopes into existence, or do you wait until the original isotope nears its half life?

I .... I think you've earned this. You really have.

You really deserve it. - YouTube

I could respond; but what more can be said? To address his points directly is to overlook the far larger issue; the elephant in the room, if you will. These statements are strawmen and total non-sequiturs and make his level of education and/or interest in learning clear.

 

[Inan3]

How could you determine if the genesis account is literal or figarative (or even a third option of just plain made up)?
In my opinion the best way to assess this claim is to look at the evidence - so what would you expect to see if the world was literally created in 7 days less than 10,0000 years ago?
What would the world look like if it was not made this way?
What would the universe look like if the bible was just a story?

So for me, asses the evidence and then make up your mind.

Personally, I would go for the third option - and I am prepared to show the evidence which led me to this conclusion if anyone is interested.


Lol, love that picture!

Oh, Nails, we are always interested in what you have to say!!

 

[Inan3]

I'm unable to cite any sources to back you up on this.
Sorry.

Don't be sorry, but please explain what you mean.

 

[Inan3]

But it was written by the natural man... say what?!

Yes it was, but it was as it was given to them by the Spirit.

The point is that the scriptures are "spiritual" concepts, not a history book or a science book. That is not to say they are not logical or literal or true. It is just when you look at the scriptures to interpret their meaning you must have an understanding of spiritual things and especially God. Words in and of themselves are spirit and can produce. That is a spiritual concept and without this understanding you cannot really have a true understanding of God. God is a word Being. We, being created in God's image and likeness, are, also, word beings. That is what makes us so different from animals. So to understand Genesis 1 you must first understand that. The scriptures teach us that God "calls those things that be no as though they were." We see this all through the scriptures. Genesis 1, is no different. When God speaks, although, it might not happen "in the natural" at that precise time it is just as if it did. So Genesis 1 is literal in the sense that God created first by speaking things into existence. The order was not the important issue. The creation, and function of it, was. In six days God spoke and created things into being. The order is explained a little more later.

 

[Dieselman]

I could respond; but what more can be said?

Consider me underwhelmed.
If I sat in Spanish class for 20 years I might speak Spanish.
If I sat in Jerry Wright's church for 20 years I might know how to say "G Damn America!"
If I worked in Emmet's Fix It Shop for 20 years, I might know how to fix a toaster by banging it on the counter.
If I worked as a chemist for 20 years I might know a few things about chemistry.
If I spent 20 years looking for the Lincoln Memorial in Miami I wouldn't fnd it because it isn't there. Likewise, if I spent 20 years looking for for the reason of our existence in molecules-to-man fallicies I wouldn't find it there, either.

I have a great respect for science; so much so that I don't expect it to explain things that it cannot explain. I understand that science cannot explain how the son of God came to earth, was crucified for the sins of man, died, and rose again on the third day. I understand the limitations of science. I don't try to pretend that somehow abiogenesis happened or that exceedingly rare benevolent mutations can advance a species by creating new genetic information from nothingness. I know that erradiated fruit flies are still fruit flies and that things which are impossible in 10 years are equally impossible in 10 million years.

I don't expect science to have the answers to supernatural happenings, nor am I foolish enough to think that God's miracles had any basis in natural law. The fact that they are impossible is what makes them miracles. I know the word of God is truth<edit>. We can only pray that you find salvation and real truth while you still can.

 

[Inan3]

Consider me underwhelmed.
If I sat in Spanish class for 20 years I might speak Spanish.
If I sat in Jerry Wright's church for 20 years I might know how to say "G Damn America!"
If I worked in Emmet's Fix It Shop for 20 years, I might know how to fix a toaster by banging it on the counter.
If I worked as a chemist for 20 years I might know a few things about chemistry.
If I spent 20 years looking for the Lincoln Memorial in Miami I wouldn't fnd it because it isn't there. Likewise, if I spent 20 years looking for for the reason of our existence in molecules-to-man fallicies I wouldn't find it there, either.

I have a great respect for science; so much so that I don't expect it to explain things that it cannot explain. I understand that science cannot explain how the son of God came to earth, was crucified for the sins of man, died, and rose again on the third day. I understand the limitations of science. I don't try to pretend that somehow abiogenesis happened or that exceedingly rare benevolent mutations can advance a species by creating new genetic information from nothingness. I know that erradiated fruit flies are still fruit flies and that things which are impossible in 10 years are equally impossible in 10 million years.

I don't expect science to have the answers to supernatural happenings, nor am I foolish enough to think that God's miracles had any basis in natural law. The fact that they are impossible is what makes them miracles. I know the word of God is truth<edit>. We can only pray that you find salvation and real truth while you still can.

Well said, Dieselman, well said!!

 

[Jamin4422]

Remember, the sun, moon and stars were created on day four.

God did not create the sun, moon and stars all on the same day. The work God was doing was in the firmament. This is a referance to the way the firmament deals with the light from the sun, moon and stars. Can anyone tell us: "why is the sky blue"?

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Before a child is ready to attend school, they have to be able to tell you what color is the sky, what color is grass. So this is all pretty basic and fundamental stuff.

"The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue. "

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html

 

[BobRyan]

God did not create the sun, moon and stars all on the same day.

That much is true.

He created "TWO great lights" on creation week - day 4 -- not "a zillion and two"

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

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.

To an ant - a cigarette lighter looks like "magic".

That is simply a given.

Have another shot at it.

So fine - the rocks will never gather themselves together and make a live dog.

I think we all knew that.

But Creationists also know that an amoeba will never turn into a horse -- no matter how much hand waiving and story telling you insert.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Jamin4422]

I don't expect science to have the answers to supernatural happenings, nor am I foolish enough to think that God's miracles had any basis in natural law.

The miracles I have seen establishes God's law. It is difficult to prove a miracle because it is difficult to prove that there was ever a problem. Everything just looks normal. There really is no scar tissue to show that there was ever a problem or an issue.

 

[Jamin4422]

That much is true.

He created "TWO great lights" on creation week - day 4 -- not "a zillion and two"

"God said: Let there be light and there was light". On the first day. He set that light in the firmament on the fourth day.

 

[Dieselman]

He created "TWO great lights" on creation week - day 4 -- not "a zillion and two"

Genesis 1:
1:14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:1:15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.1:16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.1:17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,1:18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.1:19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.