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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

From Post 961 here:

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

I notice that EarthScienceguy didn't provide a single thing to back up that sweeping claim. Perhaps some more considerate creationists will do that here.

This is a good post, it shows how people perceive the world.

He likely did not provide anything to "back up" what he said because to him it isn't some remarkable, shocking, world shattering claim.

For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

Which leaves us to wonder if y'all's inability to think logically is a by product, or a cause, of it.

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

Which leaves us to wonder if y'all's inability to think logically is a by product, or a cause, of it.

The cause is eevalush'n ain't it?

[brunumb]

From Post 961 here:

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

I notice that EarthScienceguy didn't provide a single thing to back up that sweeping claim. Perhaps some more considerate creationists will do that here.

This is a good post, it shows how people perceive the world.

He likely did not provide anything to "back up" what he said because to him it isn't some remarkable, shocking, world shattering claim.

For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

When you are in a debating forum and you make a significant claim that "there is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation" you'd better be prepared to back it up. Not a hard thing to do, so failure in that regard leads to the obvious conclusion.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

Which leaves us to wonder if y'all's inability to think logically is a by product, or a cause, of it.

The cause is eevalush'n ain't it?

And you complain about how I have to tell it.

Regardless of anyone's pet religious beliefs, evolution is to fact, what gravity is to clumsy people.

[Sherlock Holmes]

From Post 961 here:

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

I notice that EarthScienceguy didn't provide a single thing to back up that sweeping claim. Perhaps some more considerate creationists will do that here.

This is a good post, it shows how people perceive the world.

He likely did not provide anything to "back up" what he said because to him it isn't some remarkable, shocking, world shattering claim.

For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

When you are in a debating forum and you make a significant claim that "there is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation" you'd better be prepared to back it up. Not a hard thing to do, so failure in that regard leads to the obvious conclusion.

I must remind you that it was not I that made the claim, odd that you missed this rather important detail, perhaps you need to be more thorough.

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

Which leaves us to wonder if y'all's inability to think logically is a by product, or a cause, of it.

The cause is eevalush'n ain't it?

And you complain about how I have to tell it.

Regardless of anyone's pet religious beliefs, evolution is to fact, what gravity is to clumsy people.

I am stating that arguing with me is pointless, I am a product of evolution, it is evolution that led to people who believe in God, what else but nature could have led to such people existing?

Did I make myself? I am a machine, a product of nature, arguing with me is arguing with nature, it seems utterly futile.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #0]

I do not care to spend a lot of time with this but I will give you two. And these are usually the two that most people cite when discussing Creation cosmology.

1. Starlight how could light from stars that are billions of years away reach the Earth in such a short amount of time.

a. Atheistic cosmology has the same problem. It is theorized that the universe has existed for around 14 billion years. And has been expanding ever since. The problem is the smooth temperature of the universe. The temperature of the universe varies the same amount as a cup of water that has been set out overnight in a room at a constant temperature.

Cosmic inflation was given as the answer to this problem. Yet comic inflation has big problems

After spending many years researching the foundations of cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory.

Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?

A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... r=7b6ecff0

Creation Cosmology has a mechanism for the beginning of the universe it has a mechanism for the even temperature of the universe.

2. Radioactive dating

Uranium is found mostly in the continental crust in specific spots. The common explanation is that these areas are leftover from the formation of the solar system. This would mean that stellar evolution would have to be true. This is a big problem. In the current theory, it takes stars to make stars. The problem is Charles's law, collapsing a ball of gas.

It is much more believable that the uranium was caused by underground lightning as a result of z-pinch. Everything I have just mentioned has been observed and the theory behind them know

[brunumb]

From Post 961 here:

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

I notice that EarthScienceguy didn't provide a single thing to back up that sweeping claim. Perhaps some more considerate creationists will do that here.

This is a good post, it shows how people perceive the world.

He likely did not provide anything to "back up" what he said because to him it isn't some remarkable, shocking, world shattering claim.

For those of us who attach importance to scripture much of what it says is not perceived from the context of the atheist, the incredulity just isn't there for us.

When you are in a debating forum and you make a significant claim that "there is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation" you'd better be prepared to back it up. Not a hard thing to do, so failure in that regard leads to the obvious conclusion.

I must remind you that it was not I that made the claim, odd that you missed this rather important detail, perhaps you need to be more thorough.

Firstly, my original post was directed to Joey, not you. You decided to interject and defend EarthScienceguy's failure to back up his claim with any evidence. My response was clearly a generalised comment regarding the need for posters to back up significant claims and was not directly saying that you specifically needed to support his claims. So, I did not miss that detail at all and perhaps it is you who needs to consider their own comprehension skills. That said, it is noteworthy that you still have made no contribution in relation to evidence for a 6-day creation, the topic of this debate. Got any?

[brunumb]

I am a machine, a product of nature, arguing with me is arguing with nature, it seems utterly futile.

You have made that last part patently obvious for some time now. Nevertheless, is there any evidence that you can provide that supports a 6-day creation or are you merely here to obfuscate?