A 6 Day Creation

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 961 here:

There is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation.

For debate:

Please offer evidence for a literal six day creation of the Universe.

Please remember that in this section of the site the Bible is not considered authoritative.

[Jose Fly]

Some evidence of the Flood:

1) the narratives of contemporaries (the Bible)

That's no more evidence for a flood than the Quran is evidence for Mohammed visiting heaven, or the Book of Mormon is for Joseph Smith finding golden plates.

2) the accounts of different ancient cultures which coincide in different aspects with the biblical story

If overlaps between stories are evidence for a flood, does that mean discrepancies between stories are evidence against a flood?

3) the remains of marine animals on high mountains

How is that evidence for a global flood?

4) the disappearance of whole ancient civilizations of which nothing remained but rest of constructions on the terrain
5) the existence of completely submerged city constructions

Specific examples please.

6) the common origin of all languages
7) the common origin of all human races
8) the similarity of beliefs in different religious cultures of antiquity

Please explain how the specifics of those things = global flood.

9) erosion caused by water in many parts of the planet

Are you arguing that the only water erosion that has ever occurred was during the global flood? If not, how does the above necessarily = global flood?

[Eloi]

Atheists rely heavily on their dating to be able to understand and interpret the facts of the planet's history and past... If they were to date what they call the last ice age to a more recent time, they would have the same evidence for the Flood that they are asking for.

Why an ice age without human survivors, and not a Flood with a family that repopulates the planet? The Bible tells of 8 people surviving the Flood, four couples. Their descendants repopulated the planet. From there emerged human races, languages, ancient stories, etc.

There is an Assyrian (maybe Babylonian, not sure now) document where a king says that he learned to read documents from before the Flood, because he learned their language (supposedly Sumerian). Why does this Assyrian king speak of such matters, if he was not an Israelite?

[Jose Fly]

Science and Religion Subforum Guidelines: "While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

[Miles]

Atheists rely heavily on their dating to be able to understand and interpret the facts of the planet's history and past... If they were to date what they call the last ice age to a more recent time, they would have the same evidence for the Flood that they are asking for.

Which is what, that "the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high mountains that are under all the heavens were covered"? I hardly think so. For one thing, scientists are much too smart to fall for such baloney.


.

[Eloi]

Scientists have discovered the common origin of all ancient languages. They have also discovered the common origin of genetic lines, more than enough proof (for the ones asking for them) that modern humanity all comes from the same lineage.

PD: I wonder what the moderators expect to moderate the forumist who is filling this topic with posts related to the forum rules without any need.

[Eloi]

Atheists rely heavily on their dating to be able to understand and interpret the facts of the planet's history and past... If they were to date what they call the last ice age to a more recent time, they would have the same evidence for the Flood that they are asking for.

Which is what, that "the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high mountains that are under all the heavens were covered"? I hardly think so. For one thing, scientists are much too smart to fall for such baloney.


.

I myself have found marine fossils, like sea snail carcasses on top of mountains that I have climbed. It is personal experience.

The planet has many places where water erosion has shaped the land; rivers? I don't think so, because they are intense erosions that only torrents of water could cause.

Another thing is how those who deny the fidelity of the Bible to the facts it narrates, interpret the signs they have. As I have said in other posts, an atheist will NEVER accept that the facts that are presented to them are related to God or the Bible ... so it is useless to try to reason with this type of person (atheists who do not have their mind open to other explanations they still do not know).

I wonder what is the real point of presenting well-crafted arguments in a subforum like this. Do you want to measure how demagogue one or the other can be?

[Miles]

Atheists rely heavily on their dating to be able to understand and interpret the facts of the planet's history and past... If they were to date what they call the last ice age to a more recent time, they would have the same evidence for the Flood that they are asking for.

Which is what, that "the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth; and all the high mountains that are under all the heavens were covered"? I hardly think so. For one thing, scientists are much too smart to fall for such baloney.


.

I myself have found marine fossils, like sea snail carcasses on top of mountains that I have climbed. It is personal experience.

And how does geology say they got there? Look it up.

........

The planet has many places where water erosion has shaped the land; rivers? I don't think so, because they are intense erosions that only torrents of water could cause.

And how does geology say they formed? Look it up.

Another thing is how those who deny the fidelity of the Bible to the facts it narrates, interpret the signs they have. As I have said in other posts, an atheist will NEVER accept that the facts that are presented to them are related to God or the Bible

In as much as no one, including Christians, have provided reasonable evidence of a god why should they? Would you believe anything that did not have reas . . . never mind. Of course you would.

... so it is useless to try to reason with this type of person (atheists who do not have their mind open to other explanations they still do not know).

Not looking for explanations, but reasonable, convincing EVIDENCE.

I wonder what is the real point of presenting well-crafted arguments in a subforum like this.

To shore-up your faith in the face of scientific evidence perhaps?

.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #372]

Atheists rely heavily on their dating to be able to understand and interpret the facts of the planet's history and past... If they were to date what they call the last ice age to a more recent time, they would have the same evidence for the Flood that they are asking for.

Do you think all scientists or others who use radiometric dating and other dating methods are all atheists? There are plenty of Christians and followers of other religious who use dating techniques and believe the results, publish science papers based on those results, etc. Many of them just don't take the Genesis stories literally because they so obviously are not, as science has shown conclusively.

And why would "they" randomly date the last ice age to a more recent time? If the dating methodology shows certain dates then that is what is reported. Dates are not just made up or arrived at by accident, and subject to revisions without some good reason to do so (and trying to match them to bible stories is not a good reason).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #376]

I wonder what is the real point of presenting well-crafted arguments in a subforum like this. Do you want to measure how demagogue one or the other can be?

No again ... it is to foster debate on topics where science and religion overlap. Noah's flood and the creation stories of Genesis are perfect examples of subjects where science can be brought to bear on whether those stories are actually literal events that happened as described.

There have been many threads on this forum discussing these particular topics. They all basically proceed with the science side presenting evidence that they could not be literal events, and why. In response, the believers generally argue that the science is nonsense, or isn't correct for one reason or another, and reference the bible as the reason why (ie. the science contradicts the bible story therefore the science has to be wrong).

I don't think I've ever seen a case where a believer accepted any science data or arguments, no matter how strongly supported by external references, books, journal papers, etc., that are not consistent with the biblical narrative, presumably because they cannot accept that this narrative could possibly be wrong. So you end up with stalemates and refusal on the part of believers to accept any science arguments against their position, purely for nonscientific reasons, and often end up complaining that they are being picked on when the science side won't back down.

[otseng]

Ya know what, I was gonna just keep poking fun at your answers, but it's abundantly clear you're incapable of showing you speak truth, if not entirely incapable of speaking it.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

Moderator Comment

There is toleration on this forum of bad arguments, but personal comments are absolutely not allowed.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.