7-Day Creation- Figurative or Literal?

[CabVet]

Less then 30% believe in evolution, so that must be wrong according to your logic.

"

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Only 13% of Americans believe in naturalistic evolution (that is that God had no part in evolution)" [/FONT]​

Poll: Most Americans Don't Believe Evolution

Look at my post again, I am not the one who said numbers matter, I simply gave an example of how they do not and majority opinion is often wrong. Thanks for proving my point.

You should also re-read your source. It says there that 13% believe God had no participation in evolution, and another 30% believe evolution was somehow "directed" by God. So, doing the math, that makes 43% believing in evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

: yawns : Spare me.

No, I won't. When you misrepresent science I will point it out.

Not with certainty. If you held a diamond in your hand you could go into great detail about how many millions of years is takes to make one.

Why would I when pressure and heat over relatively short time periods will produce diamonds? Or are you going to say that God created all diamonds just to make them look like they formed through heat and pressure when nothing of the like occurred?

Also, no one is claiming that the Earth is old because diamonds take a long time to form. Rather, we are saying that the buildup of daughter isotopes from parent isotopes with long lived half lives evidences and ancient Earth.

We see layers of ediment that took millions of years to produce... only they were created in days by a volcano.

Prove it. Give one example of a volcano producing hundreds of thousands of layers of diatoms and clay with insect and leaf debris sorted by minute differences in 14C. This is what we see in Lake Suigetsu, but no volcano or catastrophic process has ever produced these types of sediments. Never.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.htm

Okay, starting with no minerals using only a pool of water, let's see you make a rock. Better yet, what do you think would happen if the earth was suddenly covered in water deep enough so that the animals that lived on it were buried in silt and trapped under thousands of tons of water. Might it create a sudden "explosion" in the fossil record? Too bad we've never seen such a thing.
[/qs]

How does a flood sort fossils so that they are always buried under igneous rocks with specific ratios of daughter and parent isotopes? IOW, why can't we find dinosaur fossils above rock with a radiometric age younger than 60 million years? How does a flood sort fossils so that the fossils match the features of the rocks?

Also, the explosion of the fossil record can not be explained by a single flood. There are simply too many animals in the fossil record.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/toomanyanimals.htm

For example:

"Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result, it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."
Thomas H. Clark and Colin W. Stearn, The Geological Evolution of North America, (New York: The Ronald Press, 1960), p. 86-88.

So how does a flood produce a 2,000 foot deep sediment spanning a good portion of North America made up of sea lily parts? It can't. The only way to produce this type of sediment is long time periods that allow for the animals to live and die and build up a 2,000 foot deposit of body parts.

Please explain, using radiometric dating, how old Adam was in the first hour of his life?

Why would God give Adam a ratio of uranium and thorium consistent with millions of years of decay? Better yet, would God give Adam scars for injuries that he never suffered? Would God give Adam scars on his head from a bear attack that never happened?

What do we see in rocks? We see radiohalos. These are scars in rocks produced by the slow decay of radioisotopes like uranium. Would God embed a false history like radiohalos just to fool us? If we can't trust God to produce a true history in Creation, then why should we trust the Bible?

If there is no process in science which can create an isotope, how then can we expect to use that isotope to chart time?

I guess you are unaware that we can observe and measure the decay of isotopes in the lab? In fact, operation of nuclear reactors and the construction of nuclear warheads depends on this knowledge. We even create plutonium isotopes in reactors to fuel these warheads.

Moreover, if God decided to create another Earth today EXACTLY like this one, how old would radiometric dating say that planet was?

If God did not include a fake history in the rocks, then it would be one day old. We would not find millions of years of lead in zircons from the decay of uranium because millions of years had not passed. We would not find fossils in the ground sorted with respect to the ratio of isotopes in the rocks around them. We would not find radiohalos or hundreds of massive meteor impact craters. We would not find millions of years of argon buildup in tektites created by these meteor impacts because millions of years had not passed.

What next? God created the Earth 2 minutes ago, complete with fingerprints at crime scenes?

Better yet, what features would a rock need in order for you to accept it as evidence of an old Earth? The only reason that creationists argue against radiometric dating is that the results did not agree with their dogmatic religious beliefs. There is nothing wrong with the methodology.

By not knowing causation . . .

We do know causation. That is the whole point. I thought you said that you took science classes? I guess that you skipped the geologic sciences, and physics as well.

The fact remans that God created the world intact in its mature state.

That is a religious belief, not a fact. You might as well be claiming that Leprechauns plant fingerprints at crime scenes.

Science cannot account for an intact creation from nothingness.

But it can account for the creation of zircons through natural means, and the absence of Pb in those zircons with the inclusion of U. It can also account for the process of U decay that results in zircons containing Pb. It can also use these measurements to determine when the zircon was formed. Science FULLY ACCOUNTS FOR THESE THINGS.

Neither can it disprove such a creation.

What could disprove magical poofing that creates a 6,000 year old universe with evidence embedded to fake billions of years of fake history?

More importantly, why would anyone even propose such a ludicrous idea? I think you should take the advice of this minister:

"Shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made me doubt, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove this — that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes Deus quidam deceptor [‘God who is sometimes a deceiver’]. I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly created scars on the pandanus trunk, your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie. It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here... I cannot... believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind." --Rev. Charles Kingsley

Science is the study of the creation.

It is the study of the reality around us, one that you want to pretend is all make believe.

In the end, it's our knowledge of the Creator that makes all the difference.

What knowledge? What dating methodologies do you use to get an accurate date for a rock?

 

[Metal Minister]

Look at my post again, I am not the one who said numbers matter, I simply gave an example of how they do not and majority opinion is often wrong. Thanks for proving my point.

You should also re-read your source. It says there that 13% believe God had no participation in evolution, and another 30% believe evolution was somehow "directed" by God. So, doing the math, that makes 43% believing in evolution.

Which means 57% of people believe your theory holds no credulity and 87% believe only God could cause it to work...that's a win for naturalistic evolution how?

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[joep222]

Strictly speaking, God created the universe and everything in it in 6 literal, 24 hour periods (on the 7th day He rested), exactly as described in Genesis.

 

[CabVet]

Which means 57% of people believe your theory holds no credulity and 87% believe only God could cause it to work...that's a win for naturalistic evolution how?

May God Richly Bless you!

Where is it again? Oh, here:

I am not trying to establish any "winner" here, I was simply pointing out his mistake. And I also said many times that the majority is often wrong.

 

[Metal Minister]

Where is it again? Oh, here:

I am not trying to establish any "winner" here, I was simply pointing out his mistake. And I also said many times that the majority is often wrong.

Understood, my apologies. It was admittedly a blind post.

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[RickG]

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

Neither does anyone else. Why do you think they do?

 

[RickG]

I know people who are PhD's who have no common sense at all.

On what criteria do you base that?

 

[Elendur]

Less then 30% believe in evolution, so that must be wrong according to your logic.

"

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Only 13% of Americans believe in naturalistic evolution (that is that God had no part in evolution)" [/FONT]​

Poll: Most Americans Don't Believe Evolution

Note that CabVet wrote "30% of the world's population is Christian." while you linked a poll taken in one nationality (USA) about evolution.

It would be much more interesting (and relevant) if you had an international poll.

 

[AV1611VET]

On what criteria do you base that?

You knew this was coming, didn't you?

Fedex - even for MBA graduates - YouTube

It's even in my profile.

 

[RickG]

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

Pretty much most of my 64 years. I've been a Christian all my life and an active member in my Church.

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.

They are not created from nothing.

<edit>

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON


Everybody was....Kung fu fighting.

This thread has been cleaned.

If your post is gone or edited and you haven't received a PM, it was probably quoting or replying to a deleted post.

Re-opening - keep it civil or it will be closed again!


MOD HAT OFF

 

[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.

Neither does anyone else. Why do you think they do?

If the story of evolutionism does not go from single celled eukaryote down a winding path on "mount improbable" to horse - then the story is even more fascinating than I have studied so far.

I am very interested to hear how that story has been replaced by some better one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[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.

If the understanding of the science goes no deeper than a load rocks appeared from nowhere, gathered themselves together to make an amoeba which magically became a horse, then no wonder it makes no sense to you.

I am quite happy to allow that the story for evolutionism has a lot of imaginative creative (unobserved) twists and turns to it - trying to get abiogenesis going or trying to get single celled animals like amoebas to end up as horses - given billions of years of time up there on "mount improbable".

If we put other areas of science in the same terms they become equally nonsensical.

Photosynthesis: the sun appeared from nowhere and made light which hits plants which mix it with water to magically grow. Well that is clearly nonsense

I thank you for providing the contrast of what we do see in real life "Photosynthesis" (and so do NOT have to put up there on "mount improbable") vs what we do NOT see in real life "Amoeba to horse evolution" (and so DO have to put up there on that infamous "mount improbable").

The fact that photosynthesis works -- is not something we need to hope for, imagine that we might see one day etc.

Thus Patterson does not include it in is -- evolutionism as religion complaint.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Did God create the world in 7 literal days, is Genesis figurative language? Is it how we each interpret Genesis? Is Genesis a narrative to the Israelites by Moses, so they would understand God?

It's an awesome controversial topic!
Thoughts and Opinions! =)

Ok - so to answer this question -- it matters not that evolutionism is simply poor science mixed with myth. After all evolutionism failure simply means "something else" did it.

The real question to be answered for the OP is "What does the Bible say".

After all the 7 day creation idea in the OP is right out of the Bible.

So in Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:11 what do we see - -a 7 day creation week?

This is not the hard part.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Scientists know that too, which is why they have never proposed that horses evolved from an amoeba.

If the story of evolutionism does not go from single celled eukaryote down a winding path on "mount improbable" to horse - then the story is even more fascinating than I have studied so far.

It would be more helpful if you would not throw out that winding road when you describe evolution. You might as well claim that linguists have proposed that latin speakers all of the sudden started speaking french one day since they claim that french evolved from latin. What you would be ignoring is the intervening 2,000 years during which latin change quite a bit until you finally had french speakers.

We have many examples of transitional fossils along that road, but I would suspect that you will ignore these fossils, won't you.

I am very interested to hear how that story has been replaced by some better one.

Then do a google search for "transitional horse fossils". There are plenty out there.

 

[Metal Minister]

Scientists know that too, which is why they have never proposed that horses evolved from an amoeba.

That's macro-evolution my friend.

We have many examples of transitional fossils along that road, but I would suspect that you will ignore these fossils, won't you.

Can you point me to a link with the actual photos of these fossils? Not artist renderings or drawings of them, I mean the actual fossils

Then do a google search for "transitional horse fossils". There are plenty out there.

I keep finding the supposed horse evolution diagram that was found to be wrong, and only their drawings at that...got that link?

 

[jpcedotal]

Well, I am a literal 7 day Creation guy. I believe the Bible is to be taken literally except when the various human authors of the Books themselves tell us not to.

Morning and evening can only mean one day if one believes in God and that His written Word is without errors...which I do.

 

[CabVet]

That's macro-evolution my friend.

No, it is not. It is a straw man.

Can you point me to a link with the actual photos of these fossils? Not artist renderings or drawings of them, I mean the actual fossils

There are thousands of transitional fossils, you have to be a bit more specific. Just "any" transitional? If that's the case, here is a transitional between lemurs and monkeys, 47 million years old:

 

[Loudmouth]

That's macro-evolution my friend.

That is a mischaracterization of the actual science.

Can you point me to a link with the actual photos of these fossils?

The wiki page has plenty of pics and a ton of references for the actual fossils:

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you really think that these drawings are just made up?

This site also has some good pics of fossils:

Fossil Horses in Cyberspace Exhibit Menu