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.

[otseng]

but juvenility seems never far way here sometimes.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without commenting about others.

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.

[dad1]

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.

If there is evidence for a creation and or creator, that is evidence for a creation the way He says it happened.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #212]

If there is evidence for a creation and or creator, that is evidence for a creation the way He says it happened.

Sure ... that sentence is self confirming (if there is evidence, then there is evidence). The creation story in Genesis is just one of many that humans have come up with. Which of the stories in the following link are true, and which are false? Clearly they cannot all be true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

[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.

If there is evidence for a creation and or creator, that is evidence for a creation the way He says it happened.

If I was a cat, the pretty thing'd feed me whether I did my chores or not.

If.

[dad1]

[Replying to dad1 in post #212]

If there is evidence for a creation and or creator, that is evidence for a creation the way He says it happened.

Sure ... that sentence is self confirming (if there is evidence, then there is evidence). The creation story in Genesis is just one of many that humans have come up with. Which of the stories in the following link are true, and which are false? Clearly they cannot all be true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

If you stick your finger in an electrical outlet, that is proof that a current of some kind exists there. There is no justification for calling that 'self confirming'! If God displays power in someone's life that is proof that something happened. Your opinion about what the story of creation is has no merit at all since you have no clue either way. It is not scientific to try to lump all fables together with the Genesis account and make them all equal just because you can't deal with any of them with anything but personal incredulity. The only way you could bring science into that is if you had science that applied to any of the stories, and you do not have any that pertains to Genesis.

[dad1]

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.

If there is evidence for a creation and or creator, that is evidence for a creation the way He says it happened.

If I was a cat, the pretty thing'd feed me whether I did my chores or not.

If.

In the case of God's power in men's life there is no if. It does not matter if the cat is smart enough to realize where the pretty things came from.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #215]

If you stick your finger in an electrical outlet, that is proof that a current of some kind exists there.

Technically, it proves there is a voltage present that can drive current through your finger, IF there is power to the circuit. Just sticking your finger into something like a lamp bulb socket does not prove there is power to the circuit unless you get a shock ... then you have proof that a voltage was present. Nitpicking I know, but the word "proof" requires a lot more accuracy in definition.

Your opinion about what the story of creation is has no merit at all since you have no clue either way. It is not scientific to try to lump all fables together with the Genesis account and make them all equal just because you can't deal with any of them with anything but personal incredulity. The only way you could bring science into that is if you had science that applied to any of the stories, and you do not have any that pertains to Genesis.

Really? Science can show, for example, that the creation event could not have happened literally as described in Genesis; it can show that the flood of Noah could not possibly have happened as described in Genesis; it can show that the creation date estimated from biblical chronology cannot be correct (~6000 year old universe); it can show that the probability of people living to 900+ years old is nearly zero, etc. etc. Many of the other creation stories in the Wikipedia list are just as unrealistic as the one in Genesis.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to dad1 in post #215]

If you stick your finger in an electrical outlet, that is proof that a current of some kind exists there.

Technically, it proves there is a voltage present that can drive current through your finger, IF there is power to the circuit. Just sticking your finger into something like a lamp bulb socket does not prove there is power to the circuit unless you get a shock ... then you have proof that a voltage was present. Nitpicking I know, but the word "proof" requires a lot more accuracy in definition.

Your opinion about what the story of creation is has no merit at all since you have no clue either way. It is not scientific to try to lump all fables together with the Genesis account and make them all equal just because you can't deal with any of them with anything but personal incredulity. The only way you could bring science into that is if you had science that applied to any of the stories, and you do not have any that pertains to Genesis.

Really? Science can show, for example, that the creation event could not have happened literally as described in Genesis; it can show that the flood of Noah could not possibly have happened as described in Genesis; it can show that the creation date estimated from biblical chronology cannot be correct (~6000 year old universe); it can show that the probability of people living to 900+ years old is nearly zero, etc. etc. Many of the other creation stories in the Wikipedia list are just as unrealistic as the one in Genesis.

Right that's all fair enough but think - science cannot show that the universe was not created six thousand years ago with inbuilt appearance of great age. If it was then our science would never reveal it to us, because we reason on the basis of uniformitarianism - an assumption.

Nothing wrong with these assumptions either, but we must never lose sight of the facts that assumptions are not fundamental truths, this is why I always take issue with scientism and I see a lot of scientism in this forum.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to dad1 in post #215]

If you stick your finger in an electrical outlet, that is proof that a current of some kind exists there.

Technically, it proves there is a voltage present that can drive current through your finger, IF there is power to the circuit. Just sticking your finger into something like a lamp bulb socket does not prove there is power to the circuit unless you get a shock ... then you have proof that a voltage was present. Nitpicking I know, but the word "proof" requires a lot more accuracy in definition.

Your opinion about what the story of creation is has no merit at all since you have no clue either way. It is not scientific to try to lump all fables together with the Genesis account and make them all equal just because you can't deal with any of them with anything but personal incredulity. The only way you could bring science into that is if you had science that applied to any of the stories, and you do not have any that pertains to Genesis.

Really? Science can show, for example, that the creation event could not have happened literally as described in Genesis; it can show that the flood of Noah could not possibly have happened as described in Genesis; it can show that the creation date estimated from biblical chronology cannot be correct (~6000 year old universe); it can show that the probability of people living to 900+ years old is nearly zero, etc. etc. Many of the other creation stories in the Wikipedia list are just as unrealistic as the one in Genesis.

Right that's all fair enough but think - science cannot show that the universe was not created six thousand years ago with inbuilt appearance of great age. If it was then our science would never reveal it to us, because we reason on the basis of uniformitarianism - an assumption.

Nothing wrong with these assumptions either, but we must never lose sight of the facts that assumptions are not fundamental truths, this is why I always take issue with scientism and I see a lot of scientism in this forum.

And once again, you dip your toes into solipsism.

[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.

If there is evidence for a creation and or creator, that is evidence for a creation the way He says it happened.

If I was a cat, the pretty thing'd feed me whether I did my chores or not.

If.

In the case of God's power in men's life there is no if. It does not matter if the cat is smart enough to realize where the pretty things came from.

Your problem here becomes showing you speak truth regarding the following...

1. God (if he exists) has power
2. God (if he exists) employs that power in the life of men