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.

[brunumb]

If God displays power in someone's life that is proof that something happened.

If Loomingfrum displays power in someone's life that is proof that something happened.

The issue is not about whether something happened or not, it is about attributing it to the correct cause/source. How does one demonstrate unequivocally that a god did anything?

[dad1]

The issue is not what name someone that can't detect spirits whatsoever wants to call the cause of an effect. The issue is whether there was some effect or not, and you can't deal with that question by science, or reason. It does not help in identifying the source by calling possible sources silly names and ignoring God.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

We have already observed repeatedly His power, and tested and repeated. Not in one lab or test tube but in millions, nay billions. That pathetic thing about it is that poor little science cannot even confirm or deny or test one single case of these!

Don't it beat all, the most reliable means of confirming god claims, and it can't.

Yours is an argument devoid of fact.

Unless you have proof that billions of people are lying and have science to verify that you have no reliable claim or case or belief. Foot stomping does not make a science case.

Naw now, you're the one said them billions have some kinda proof or something.

I just question your, or their ability to offer a means to confirm firm it.

And it was you who said science can't confirm any of it.

In debate, the claimant's expected to offer some means to confirm they speak truth.

Or, as you propose, stomp their feet.

[brunumb]

The issue is not what name someone that can't detect spirits whatsoever wants to call the cause of an effect. The issue is whether there was some effect or not, and you can't deal with that question by science, or reason. It does not help in identifying the source by calling possible sources silly names and ignoring God.

You most certainly can deal with many questions using science. The problem for those claiming that God is responsible for some experience is that they have no way of distinguishing between that as a reality and that as merely the product of the imagination.

[dad1]

Naw now, you're the one said them billions have some kinda proof or something.

Did I say you had some? No. So prove they don't? How could you prove that when you cannot even detect any about spirits? You are in NO position to say yes or no. Neither of course is physical science.

I just question your, or their ability to offer a means to confirm firm it.

Question all you like, you cannot wave it all away. All you can do is plead ignorance.

And it was you who said science can't confirm any of it.

Correct, of course. If you dispute that then go ahead and deny or confirm using science!

In debate, the claimant's expected to offer some means to confirm they speak truth.

The truth is science cannot tell us or deal with any spiritual issue whatsoever in any way shape or form. So when faced with the overwhelming EVIDENCE (whatever you would prefer to call it doesn't matter) of most peoples of earth in all ages claiming effects from God or the spiritual, you simply are in no position to question it.

[dad1]

You most certainly can deal with many questions using science.

None whatsoever actually and that is a certainty and beyond any dispute. A simple illustration of this is watching you here and now fail to deal with ANYTHING spiritual. Period.

The problem for those claiming that God is responsible for some experience is that they have no way of distinguishing between that as a reality and that as merely the product of the imagination.

No. Your problem is that you can't call anything reality when you have zero clue what it is, or is not! Did you actually think that anything physical science cannot deal with is not reality!?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #235]

The truth is science cannot tell us or deal with any spiritual issue whatsoever in any way shape or form.

This section of the forum is titled "Science and Religion", and per the Guidelines:

"This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. 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."

I don't think anyone is arguing that science can address spiritual issues, but if you want to debate spiritual issues there are more appropriate sections of the forum for that. Here, you are going to be challenged on claims that are at odds with modern science (eg. that radiometric dating is invalid, or a 6 day creation is legitimate). Appealing to the Bible for support of scientific claims doesn't pass muster in this forum section ... you need other sources.

[Diogenes]

The issue is not what name someone that can't detect spirits whatsoever wants to call the cause of an effect.

"Someone that [sic] can't detect spirits...?"
How does one 'detect' spirits? If someone tells you they 'detect' God when they are deep in prayer, how do you know their experience was authentic? How does a person tell if the voice or presence they detect is from a spirit or from their own mind? How many spirits are there? Are they the same as ghosts? Did God make the spirits? Or did they appear independently?

[dad1]

This section of the forum is titled "Science and Religion", and per the Guidelines:

Correct so if you get some science that deals with the topic let us know! Until then just admit absolute ignorance and the abject failure of science to be able to deal with it.

"This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. 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."

The only faith based claims here are made by those thinking science somehow supports their rejection of the truth of creation.

I don't think anyone is arguing that science can address spiritual issues,

Creation IS a spiritual issue. So what can science say about the topic here?

but if you want to debate spiritual issues there are more appropriate sections of the forum for that.

There is no debate on creation, there is belief.

Here, you are going to be challenged on claims that are at odds with modern science (eg. that radiometric dating is invalid, or a 6 day creation is legitimate).

And anyone thinking science can support claim that there was or was not a creation, or that dating is NOT faith based 100% in science is going to be challenged. And defeated.

Appealing to the Bible for support of scientific claims doesn't pass muster in this forum section ... you need other sources.

Creation is not a scientific claim why would anyone want to think they needed to or could support that? That is foolishness. If you want to go against anything spiritual, or a six day creation, you won't be able to offer us ANY science.

[dad1]

How does one 'detect' spirits?

Not by science. The issue here is trying to provide some science for the 6 day creation, or against it. You can't. To detect a spirit you also would not use physical only natural only science. You must accept the extreme and severe limitations as to what science can and does cover!

If someone tells you they 'detect' God when they are deep in prayer, how do you know their experience was authentic?

Why is that my business? It sure is not the business of science!

How does a person tell if the voice or presence they detect is from a spirit or from their own mind? How many spirits are there? Are they the same as ghosts? Did God make the spirits? Or did they appear independently?

Science answers NONE of that. Science is more about sitting around and smoking a pipe and dreaming of some imaginary first life form on earth, or all of what the universe consists of sailing out of some imaginary little speck o soup etc!