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]

When I was a teen and as it was quite clear that I wasn't a Christian, one of our youth pastors asked me why that was. I explained that from my POV, the faith made absolutely no sense at all. He basically said that if I just "opened my heart to God" the "holy spirit" would somehow make it all make sense. I had the same reaction as you.....I furrowed my brow and asked "So I have to believe it first, and then it will make sense?" He actually said yes. So I asked why should I do that with just Christianity? Why not believe Mormonism, Islam, or any other religion first and then see if it starts to make sense?

He just stared at me for a few seconds and said "But we have the truth", which prompted me to ask if he'd ever tried believing in another religion. He shook his head at me and walked away.

That's an exceptionally perceptive attitude. I'd have loved to have that level of critical thinking in my teens!

for making such a good point.

Thanks! If I'm honest with myself I'm likely exaggerating my memories a little bit. Although I do remember making that point, I doubt I was as clear and concise as I depicted.

[Sherlock Holmes]

When I was a teen and as it was quite clear that I wasn't a Christian, one of our youth pastors asked me why that was. I explained that from my POV, the faith made absolutely no sense at all. He basically said that if I just "opened my heart to God" the "holy spirit" would somehow make it all make sense. I had the same reaction as you.....I furrowed my brow and asked "So I have to believe it first, and then it will make sense?" He actually said yes. So I asked why should I do that with just Christianity? Why not believe Mormonism, Islam, or any other religion first and then see if it starts to make sense?

He just stared at me for a few seconds and said "But we have the truth", which prompted me to ask if he'd ever tried believing in another religion. He shook his head at me and walked away.

That's an exceptionally perceptive attitude. I'd have loved to have that level of critical thinking in my teens!

for making such a good point.

Thanks! If I'm honest with myself I'm likely exaggerating my memories a little bit. Although I do remember making that point, I doubt I was as clear and concise as I depicted.

So that exchange with the pastor proved what to you? what conclusions did you draw?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #0]

HUH? Surely you jest. The universe is no more evidence that God exists than pink sparkles is evidence that unicorns exist.

Aristotle reasoned that God had to exist because there was motion on the Earth and in the heavens so there had to be an original mover or to put in Aristotelian terms "the unmoved mover"

"Aristotle conceived of God as outside of the world, as the final cause of all motion in Nature, as Prime Mover and Unmoved Mover of the universe. He was the crowning objective of all dynamic development in the cosmos from matter to form and from potentiality to actuality. He stood outside the Great Chain of Being yet was the source of all motion and development." Aristotle’s Concept of God
Stanley Sfekas, Ph.D. https://heptapolis.com/aristotles-conce ... conclusion.
Aristotle called this Natural Theology.

Newton concluded the same thing as Aristotle. "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect." Principia, Book III; cited in; Newton's Philosophy of Nature: Selections from his writings, p. 42, ed. H.S. Thayer, Hafner Library of Classics, NY, 1953.

Immanuel Kant's argument changed people's view on Aristotle's argument but it was nothing more than defending something that we know today is not possible. That a principal cause is an illusion.

"Kant, arguments for the existence of God cannot prove their point due to the limits of the human cognitive capacity. The apparent cogency of such arguments is due to transcendental illusion; confusing the constitution of things and the constitution of one’s thought or experience of things. For example, causal principles such as “every event has a cause” are nothing but requirements for the rational organization of our perceptions. Demonstrations of God’s existence, divine attributes, and divine providence, to the extent that they use such principles as premises concerning the constitution of things in themselves, are illusory."

So Kant's argument against Aristotle's argument was nothing more than every event has a cause is an illusion. Really.

So Kant is saying to be an atheist a person must let go of reality and believe in a universe in which events are not caused.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Oh OK, well nothing's really authoritative is it?

In saying that, are you acknowledging that the Bible is therefore not authoritative? If that is not the case, then what do you have that supports the 6-day creation account as contained in the Bible?

It was rhetorical, I wanted to see how JK responded, what he would claim as being authoritative, the point I was going to make is that its all a matter of opinion.

OK. But focsing on the thread topic, do you have anything that supports the 6-day creation account as contained in the Bible?

OK I can certainly talk about this.

I first need to mention what is called uniformitarianism a term few have heard yet a philosophical position most people have adopted.

In simple terms uniformitarianism means:

...is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

You'll see that this - correctly - describes the term as being an assumption.

Now if we assume that we can develop models that lead to the earth being billions of years old.

But why assume that? why is that assumption any better than assuming the Bible tells the truth?

If we assume the Bible is a meaningful revealed record of the past then we can easily work out that the earth was created about six thousands years ago and the creation took say, six days.

That explanation is not at odds with anything we can observe today, unless we assume uniformitarianism, which of course in this exercise we have not assumed.

In other words the 6 day creation does not conflict with any observations, it conflicts only with the assumption of uniformitarianism.

[Jose Fly]

Now if we assume that we can develop models that lead to the earth being billions of years old.

But why assume that? why is that assumption any better than assuming the Bible tells the truth?

Because it works. One example that comes to mind is how private companies utilize the ancient earth, non-flood model when searching for fossil fuel deposits. Such companies have zero interest in theological battles, culture wars, religion, atheism, etc. Their overwhelming priority is to make as much money as possible, so whatever model helps them the most in that is the one they'll go with, no matter what it is. If some creationist showed them that the young earth model produced superior results, they wouldn't hesitate to use it.

Yet they've been using the old earth, non-flood models pretty much since they started looking for fossil fuel deposits.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ONeill.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... xploration

And this again brings to mind the question.....over the last century, what contributions has young earth creationism made to our understanding of the world? I've asked that question to creationists for years and none of them have ever responded with an example.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now if we assume that we can develop models that lead to the earth being billions of years old.

But why assume that? why is that assumption any better than assuming the Bible tells the truth?

Because it works. One example that comes to mind is how private companies utilize the ancient earth, non-flood model when searching for fossil fuel deposits. Such companies have zero interest in theological battles, culture wars, religion, atheism, etc. Their overwhelming priority is to make as much money as possible, so whatever model helps them the most in that is the one they'll go with, no matter what it is. If some creationist showed them that the young earth model produced superior results, they wouldn't hesitate to use it.

Yet they've been using the old earth, non-flood models pretty much since they started looking for fossil fuel deposits.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/ONeill.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... xploration

And this again brings to mind the question.....over the last century, what contributions has young earth creationism made to our understanding of the world? I've asked that question to creationists for years and none of them have ever responded with an example.

Are you arguing that uniformitarianism is not an assumption?

You cannot assume uniformitarianism then reason from that assumption to prove uniformitarianism, that's what you're implying but you're quite wrong.

There's no way you can show that the earth was not created to look exactly as it looks - you cannot prove that, try as you might, it must be assumed, it is taken on faith.

The world looks billions of years old IF we assume uniformitarianism, but looks very young if we assume catastrophism.

How do you know God did not create the earth six thousand years ago with the appearance that its much much older? you do not it is faith on your part!

[Jose Fly]

Are you arguing that uniformitarianism is not an assumption?

No, I'm making the point that uniformitarianism produces real, useful results.....or as I said, it works.

You cannot assume uniformitarianism then reason from that assumption to prove uniformitarianism, that's what you're implying but you're quite wrong.

There's no way you can show that the earth was not created to look exactly as it looks - you cannot prove that, try as you might, it must be assumed, it is taken on faith.

Well, if you want to believe that in the past everything was different.....gravity didn't exist, the earth used to be flat and was orbited by the sun, erosion never happened.....and things only started working the way they do now when a god magically made it so (and did so in a way that we can't detect), that's your choice.

But I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously if I were you.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are you arguing that uniformitarianism is not an assumption?

No, I'm making the point that uniformitarianism produces real, useful results.....or as I said, it works.

Useful result? we have a planet swamped in the ravages of an unfolding fossil fuel driven self destruction and you regard that as useful? seriously? you have not heard of climate change where you work?

Slavery and Eugenics were useful too once Jose.

You cannot assume uniformitarianism then reason from that assumption to prove uniformitarianism, that's what you're implying but you're quite wrong.

There's no way you can show that the earth was not created to look exactly as it looks - you cannot prove that, try as you might, it must be assumed, it is taken on faith.

Well, if you want to believe that in the past everything was different.....gravity didn't exist, the earth used to be flat and was orbited by the sun, erosion never happened.....and things only started working the way they do now when a god magically made it so (and did so in a way that we can't detect), that's your choice.

But I wouldn't expect to be taken seriously if I were you.

I'm sure that are plenty who'd take that seriously, many physicists and mathematicians for example, people who understand actual real science not the softer sciences that you are attracted to.

Unless you believe that universe has always existed then of course there must have been a time when gravity did not exist, yes?

Perhaps God wants to show us clearly how our nature is ultimately and unavoidably self destructive, by creating a world that we are given free reign and capable of destroying through our greed and exploitation , what if that was a goal God had?

Could we blame God? would you blame God given everything you've said and argued here?

[Jose Fly]

Useful result? we have a planet swamped in the ravages of an unfolding fossil fuel driven self destruction and you regard that as useful? seriously?

Slavery and Eugenics were useful too once Jose.

Oh for the love of.......really? That's the best retort you could muster? Are you really making the bizarre argument that fossil fuels are bad, therefore the models they use to find them are wrong?

And you said logic was your specialty!

I'm sure that are plenty who'd take that seriously, many physicist and mathematicians for example, people who understand actual real science not the softer sciences that you are attracted to.

Unless you believe that universe has always existed then of course there must have been a time when gravity did not exist, yes?

Nice try......well....not really.

Seriously though, 30 years of debating science and this is the best you can do? If ever anyone were looking for an indication of how empty creationism is.......

[Sherlock Holmes]

Useful result? we have a planet swamped in the ravages of an unfolding fossil fuel driven self destruction and you regard that as useful? seriously?

Slavery and Eugenics were useful too once Jose.

Oh for the love of.......really? That's the best retort you could muster? Are you really making the bizarre argument that fossil fuels are bad, therefore the models they use to find them are wrong?

And you said logic was your specialty!

I'm sure that are plenty who'd take that seriously, many physicist and mathematicians for example, people who understand actual real science not the softer sciences that you are attracted to.

Unless you believe that universe has always existed then of course there must have been a time when gravity did not exist, yes?

Nice try......well....not really.

Seriously though, 30 years of debating science and this is the best you can do? If ever anyone were looking for an indication of how empty creationism is.......

I simply do not share your definition of utility, the very thing you cited as useful could be something that destroys us all, that's true isn't it?

For more than a century, burning fossil fuels has generated most of the energy required to propel our cars, power our businesses, and keep the lights on in our homes. Even today, oil, coal, and gas provide for about 80 percent of our energy needs.

And we’re paying the price. Using fossil fuels for energy has exacted an enormous toll on humanity and the environment—from air and water pollution to global warming.

Well? tell me why do you refer to that activity as "useful"? because if it isn't useful (and it isn't) then your reason for adopting uniformitarianism evaporates.

I'll let you in in a secret Jose, we all believe in God, even you. In the non-Christian case you are the God, people believe in, are devoted to and pursue the interests of, worship their God - themselves; there I told you a fundamental truth do with what you will.

We are our own idol and until that idol is smashed and thrown aside we will continue to worship the idol, only with God's help can we do that.