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.

[dad1]

I make no claims about how the earth came about, so bear me no responsibility to support those claims I ain't made.

Divorcing yourself from science then, while at the same time asking for evidence for a creation the bible talks about without using the bible!?

Sounds like a problem for the claimant.

No. Admitting science can and does not know anything about spirits is no problem for bible believers. Really.

[JoeyKnothead]

I make no claims about how the earth came about, so bear me no responsibility to support those claims I ain't made.

Divorcing yourself from science then, while at the same time asking for evidence for a creation the bible talks about without using the bible!?

Let's say it again for them who might be hard of thinking...

The bible can be used, it just ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

Sounds like a problem for the claimant.

No. Admitting science can and does not know anything about spirits is no problem for bible believers. Really.

I don't doubt bible believers have no problem believing in claims that can't be shown to be true.

I do, however, think they have em a problem if they try to put truth to the OP claims.

Fortunately, by not actually trying to support the OP claims, you allow your god belief to go unchallenged.

[Eloi]

If a man tells his friend: "I saw your wife kissing another man in a hotel", and his friend pretends not to understand because he is not interested, that does not change reality, even if it can never be shown in such a way that convince him if he asks for that. We have a saying in my country of origin: "eye that does not see, heart that does not feel" .... But that the eye does not see, means absolutely nothing.

The Bible is a compendium of history; it is not based on invented history, it is a collection of documents that came to pass trough different generations, and it includes the names of fathers, children, grandchildren, greatchildren, etc, with names, ages, etc. Jews believe this history because they received from old generations, real persons, their ancestors. Some modern jews don't believe on the documents they received ... That does not change a thing. It is so detailed that we can even trace back generations and know who was the ancestor of Jesus at a certain ancient time... Those records were even kept in the temple, just as there are birth records and genealogies in churches and government offices. That says a lot about the stories that those very people of the past recorded for their descendants to know in posterity. Nobody invented anything, as atheists and enemies of the Bible often say.

Biblical stories go back to the first human couple and their direct communication with the Creator. So, how did the writer of the first recorded documents in the book of Genesis (of Moses) know that creation occurred in 6 stages or periods? He was informed so that it was registered. No man would have arranged the things that exist in an order like that of the creative days of Genesis in the way that it has been recorded. Those who study the order of appearance of those same things give an order quite similar to the biblical one... and that is neither coincidence nor chance.

Compare:

Gen. 2:4 This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.

... with:

Gen. 5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day that God created Adam, he made him in the likeness of God.

... and:

Gen. 6:9 This is the history of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If a man tells his friend: "I saw your wife kissing another man in a hotel", and his friend pretends not to understand because he is not interested, that does not change reality, even if it can never be shown in such a way that convince him if he asks for that. We have a saying in my country of origin: "eye that does not see, heart that does not feel" .... But that the eye does not see, means absolutely nothing.

The Bible is a compendium of history; it is not based on invented history, it is a collection of documents that came to pass trough different generations, and it includes the names of fathers, children, grandchildren, greatchildren, etc, with names, ages, etc. Jews believe this history because they received from old generations, real persons, their ancestors. Some modern jews don't believe on the documents they received ... That does not change a thing. It is so detailed that we can even trace back generations and know who was the ancestor of Jesus at a certain ancient time... Those records were even kept in the temple, just as there are birth records and genealogies in churches and government offices. That says a lot about the stories that those very people of the past recorded for their descendants to know in posterity. Nobody invented anything, as atheists and enemies of the Bible often say.

Biblical stories go back to the first human couple and their direct communication with the Creator.

Well said. As a former atheist I recall clearly how I ridiculed "The Bible" (I was quite cruel to theists back then) and perceived it as a total mash up of bizarre ramblings from a primitive people struggling for meaning in a harsh world. The very title "The Bible" made me sick, why that particular old bunch of books and not others? I used to ask.

An important thing I later realized is that most non-religious people cannot see the Bible free from the influence of current society, they way we see things today influences how we perceive the Bible, it takes a great deal of effort to truly form an open mind when examining the Bible and developing an open mind was the greatest effort for me, took years.

As a software engineer, often confronting bewildering behavior in systems that should be straightforward, I get huge value from my ability (far from perfect) to frame things neutrally, a lesson I learned many many years ago from an experienced and respected programmer in the early 1980s was "Assume nothing". Of course that's hard to do, but in my professional work I have often made assumptions (often subliminally too) that have cost me dearly in terms of time. Resolving some bug might have taken a week yet when finally discovered it becomes apparent that if only I hadn't assumed X or assumed Y, I'd have found the bug in an hour!

This carries over to the Bible - for me anyway. When I first began to seriously study it I was amazed at how many things I had assumed about it that were actually not true, I suspect many atheists have assumed similar things about the Bible and these assumptions seriously distort our perceptions.

Unless one makes a serious intellectual effort to attain neutrality, the Bible will likely remain a jumbled up bunch of claptrap.

[Jose Fly]

If a man tells his friend: "I saw your wife kissing another man in a hotel", and his friend pretends not to understand because he is not interested, that does not change reality, even if it can never be shown in such a way that convince him if he asks for that.

What if he says "Maybe God just made it seem that way"? What's the rebuttal to that?

And the rest of your post is just preaching, which is supposed to be against the rules of this sub-forum.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #353]

Nobody invented anything, as atheists and enemies of the Bible often say.

James Ussher used biblical chronology to arrive at a specific date for "creation" around 4004 BC, and others have arrived at similar time frames. But we know with 100% certainty that the Earth (and universe) is far older than this by orders of magnitude. How do you square the actual age of the Earth with biblical chronology, which produces such a wildly incorrect date for "creation."

The creation story of Genesis and all the begats, etc. are not descriptions of real, historical events or the histories of real people. The 900+ year ages, Noah's flood, etc. are clearly just stories passed down from whoever invented them to begin with. We can say it was indeed all invented because of the scientific impossibility of these things being actually true. Good stories for the time they were developed, but clearly they are not literally true.

[dad1]

Let's say it again for them who might be hard of thinking...

The bible can be used, it just ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

The bible is authoritative and whatever people in any section of any site think doesn't matter. I tried to avoid the bible as much as possible here, but since science has absolutely nothing to offer either way on creation, where does that leave us?

I don't doubt bible believers have no problem believing in claims that can't be shown to be true.

If the bible shows claims to be true (namely the ones it makes itself) then bible believers follow along.

I do, however, think they have em a problem if they try to put truth to the OP claims.

So avoid the truth in this thread then?

Fortunately, by not actually trying to support the OP claims, you allow your god belief to go unchallenged.

No one can challenge it so how is that any bonus?

[dad1]

.
The creation story of Genesis and all the begats, etc. are not descriptions of real, historical events or the histories of real people. .

Should we also say the posters here are not real?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #342]

You wrote:

That men invented all the god concepts throughout all of history is an idea supported by evidence.

Which means there is the question of how one interprets that evidence surely?

Surely not.
Humans, thoughout all known human history have invented god concepts. There is no interpretation needed.
I was uncomfortable about this fact when I was a Christian too.

Your attempt to obfuscate will not go unnoticed though.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #342]

You wrote:

That men invented all the god concepts throughout all of history is an idea supported by evidence.

Which means there is the question of how one interprets that evidence surely?

Surely not.
Humans, thoughout all known human history have invented god concepts. There is no interpretation needed.
I was uncomfortable about this fact when I was a Christian too.

Your attempt to obfuscate will not go unnoticed though.

Well in my experience, all evidence is interpreted, judgments about its meaning is attached to it, that's what we do, humans have that ability animals it seems do not.

If you care to present an example of evidence for something that you think is not interpreted we can discuss it, I'm willing to admit error should that ever happen.

Finally, nothing Sherlock Holmes says, goes unnoticed!