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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #272]

You have provides a list of isotopes that show a sequence of decay in this present day. The thing is, you need to apply that to many millions of years ago (in imaginary so called science time). Just because forces now exist that result in radioactivity and decay, does not mean this was also the case in the far past. Basically you are looking at what goes on today and using belief and belief alone to assume that this is how it always was.

See post 278. We can directly measure the spectra from stars many millions and even billions of light years away, and some gas clouds near them, and confirm that the atoms and molecules making up those are the same as they are on Earth today. It is not "belief alone", but actual measurements. In contrast, your idea that things may have been different in the past has no basis whatsoever ... it is just made up out of thin air as a weak counterargument. Find some support for it and then you'll have an argument.

[Jose Fly]

Are you new to debate?

Recently I've been operating under the conclusion that he's not here to debate.

[JoeyKnothead]

Are you new to debate?

Recently I've been operating under the conclusion that he's not here to debate.

I find much mirth in seeing theists come in with their "killer" arguments, only to be incapable of doing any more'n complain how neither they, nor science can support religious claims.

Oblivious to the implications.

[Jose Fly]

Are you new to debate?

Recently I've been operating under the conclusion that he's not here to debate.

I find much mirth in seeing theists come in with their "killer" arguments, only to be incapable of doing any more'n complain how neither they, nor science can support religious claims.

Oblivious to the implications.

"Oblivious"....yes, that's a term I've applied to conservative Christians since I was a kid. I remember seeing my pastor and SS teacher anointing a congregant with oil, laying hands, and praying over them because they had the flu. Even as a kid I knew that all they were doing was spreading the virus further, and sure enough by the next week all those folks were sick (which they naturally blamed on Satan). I can specifically remember muttering under my breath "It's a virus people!", which caused my mom to shush me.

It's a way of thinking and looking at the world that I simply don't get.....at all. And that makes me wonder if the creationists feel the same about us and science. Maybe it really is that simple....they're just as baffled by my way of thinking as I am by theirs?

[dad1]

[Replying to dad1 in post #270]

Show us any methodology to arrive at any date, say, over a billion years int the universe, and I can proceed to show you what is wrong.

This should be good. Let's see your best shot at shooting down just two:

1) Radiometric dating, specifically all of the following isotope combinations which can be used for things more then 1 billion years old and give consistent results:

206-Pb - 207 Pb
204-Pb/206-Pb
207-Pb/206-Pb
I-Xe
Mn-Cr
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Pb-Pb
U-Pb
232-TH-208Pb
Hf-W
Ar-Ar
K-Ar
Re-Os
U-Th/He

Let's look at that then. You have provides a list of isotopes that show a sequence of decay in this present day. The thing is, you need to apply that to many millions of years ago (in imaginary so called science time). Just because forces now exist that result in radioactivity and decay, does not mean this was also the case in the far past. Basically you are looking at what goes on today and using belief and belief alone to assume that this is how it always was.

You do realize that forces exist that work to cause this radioactivity? So, no one is asking how it works now, we know that. If all you want to do is date things a few thousand years (when we know things were the same) that is fine. It works! Beyond that, you are in pure belief territory. How do you know the same forces on earth existed as we know them today?? Unless you prove that they were the same then you have no leg to stand on. Your suppositions will have to remain religious musings.

Were you there a billion years ago to see that the elements did not already exist? Why would we assume that all of them had to come to exist BY the forces working today?? That is your one trick pony.

I'm always struck how uniformitarianism, continuous processes are assumed by materialists ignoring the fact that there must have been a discontinuity at some point in the past when everything started to exist.

Imagine if you will, nothing existing and then stuff starting to exist gradually, smoothly, continuously! If we start with nothing there's no basis for it to ever become anything other than nothing.

If we start with nothing then as soon as anything, even the tiniest particle of matter, begins to exist, that cannot be a continuous "process" it is a dramatic step function.

Exactly, the religion of origin science is a religion of unbelief in God for the most part. Not much else to it.

[dad1]

ee post 278. We can directly measure the spectra from stars many millions and even billions of light years away, and some gas clouds near them, and confirm that the atoms and molecules making up those are the same as they are on Earth today.

That is misinformation. You cannot directly do anything in the far universe. You only get the light AFTER it arrives HERE! Naturally everything once it is here must operate the way things must operate here in our time and space and laws. So it IS belief alone. Nothing else.

[dad1]

The evidence raised was that most people on the planet have always experienced things that they attributed to spirits.

That is a claim, and an unsupported one at that. Claims are not evidence.

Oh really? so what about claims that something is evidence?

Then we ask to see what that something is, and go from there.

Are you new to debate?

If you offered any science or reason or fact to debate we could start anytime. Your religious pulpit pounding is boring.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #286]

That is misinformation. You cannot directly do anything in the far universe. You only get the light AFTER it arrives HERE! Naturally everything once it is here must operate the way things must operate here in our time and space and laws. So it IS belief alone. Nothing else.

What? Of course you can only measure the photons once they get here (that's obvious), but it is where they originated that is the point that you seem to be missing (or misunderstanding). If a hygrogen atom at a star 1 billion light years away emits a photon due to an electron dropping from a higher energy level to the first excited level it is part of the so-called Balmer series. On Earth, this is in the visible wavelength region so is often used for demonstrations. We know all about this series:

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

If the emitted photons from the star travel towards Earth and eventually make it here (as many do), we can measure them and generally see the Balmer pattern red shifted (ie. to longer wavelengths). We know how that works as well (both the cosmoligical redshift due to the expansion of the universe (Hubble's law), and the Doppler shift):

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

You (apparently) are trying to argue that when the photons from the star get "here" they somehow change their behavior. What evidence do you have for that, or what reasoning? And how close does the photon have to get to the spectrometer before it suddenly decides to behave differently? Is that mm, miles, a light year? There's no reason to believe that a photon emitted from a distant star will not be the same photon that arrives here millions or billions of years later, subject to redshifts which we understand very well. A wealth of information is contained in these photons.

Your argument sounds like another one pulled from thin air with no basis or backup. Just hand waving.

[JoeyKnothead]

The evidence raised was that most people on the planet have always experienced things that they attributed to spirits.

That is a claim, and an unsupported one at that. Claims are not evidence.

Oh really? so what about claims that something is evidence?

Then we ask to see what that something is, and go from there.

Are you new to debate?

If you offered any science or reason or fact to debate we could start anytime. Your religious pulpit pounding is boring.

Cool then.

Please stick to the OP, and stop crying about how science doesn't help to show religious claims're truth.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to dad1 in post #286]
...
...
Your argument sounds like another one pulled from thin air with no basis or backup. Just hand waving.

I think you're wrong about from where the argument was pulled.