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.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Eloi in post #376]

I wonder what is the real point of presenting well-crafted arguments in a subforum like this. Do you want to measure how demagogue one or the other can be?

No again ... it is to foster debate on topics where science and religion overlap. Noah's flood and the creation stories of Genesis are perfect examples of subjects where science can be brought to bear on whether those stories are actually literal events that happened as described.

There have been many threads on this forum discussing these particular topics. They all basically proceed with the science side presenting evidence that they could not be literal events, and why. In response, the believers generally argue that the science is nonsense, or isn't correct for one reason or another, and reference the bible as the reason why (ie. the science contradicts the bible story therefore the science has to be wrong).

I don't think I've ever seen a case where a believer accepted any science data or arguments, no matter how strongly supported by external references, books, journal papers, etc., that are not consistent with the biblical narrative, presumably because they cannot accept that this narrative could possibly be wrong. So you end up with stalemates and refusal on the part of believers to accept any science arguments against their position, purely for nonscientific reasons, and often end up complaining that they are being picked on when the science side won't back down.

For Jehovah's Witnesses, at least, what you say is true: when a biblical story is well understood (verified, translated and interpreted correctly) there is no valid reason that can discredit it. We will always try to explain why it does not coincide with something that other people believe, because we consider the Scriptures to be totally true... The reasons can be several; between them:

1) lack of understanding of what is written (note that this aspect may be in favor of another vision supposedly foreign to our own understanding), for example when some people think that the creative days were 24 hours, the scientists are right , because there are not enough reasons to understand that those days were 24 hours and not some other kind of "days"... This aspect can also be against the critics of the Bible, who sometimes believe that it says one thing, when it is only about what they think it says, but not what it really means, as when some people claim that the Bible supports the idea of ​​a flat earth; obviously that is false.

2) Lack of information on the part of secular historians and their interpreters, such as when they point to 587 BC as the year of Jerusalem's destruction, when all they have is an eclipse that may be misplaced, and a line of Babylonian kings which may be incomplete. The Bible has enough information to be sure that it happened 70 years before 537 BC.

3) Prejudice/bias of non-believers: thinking that biblical writers had some intention based on personal, sectarian or national interests, they believe that the things they wrote were marked by lies, manipulation of the facts, falsifications, etc. There is no evidence or logical reason to believe that this has been the case. The Bible is completely honest in the rulings of the entire nation, its kings, and its religious leaders.

4) Incomplete or misunderstood information from secular scholars, based on their methods, tools and technology. For example, their dates often strongly contradict the biblical chronology. However, it is a recognized fact that dates are relative. For example, several dates separated by hundreds of years have been given for the destruction of the Canaanite city of Jericho. Obviously, some of them (or all of them) could be wrong. So none of them would constitute an argument for or against some date based on a well-studied biblical chronology.

There are other reasons why the Bible takes precedence (for us) in all matters to which it refers. The solution lies in honest and well-intentioned dialogue. Witnesses believe that the Bible doesn't answer everything we might ask ourselves, but what it does say is true.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Eloi in post #381]

I think this is largely true, modern science (or perhaps "scientism" is a more accurate term these days) strives to interpret everything within the framework of uniformitarianism and causality, that is the preferred way to interpret observations. Because of this when something is interpreted that way it is then sometimes later proffered as evidence for uniformitarianism and causality, which is circular reasoning.

We really have no scientific basis to favor one means of interpretation over some other, we seem to think we have a right to expect, demand, that nature operate according to our materialistic models but this is simply not true.

It is an inarguable fact that science cannot be used to show the universe was not created six thousand years ago with an appearance of great age (or rather with characteristics that we choose to interpret as great age). As to whether it "really is" or not that's a separate question, the important point to grasp is that we cannot find out using science, science has limits on the kind of knowledge we can obtain from observations.

Now, do I personally think it was created six thousand years ago? I don't know, I tend to regard it as actually genuinely ancient but I want to stress this is a choice of interpretation it is not a reasoned conclusion based on science because science cannot help with this question.

This is my biggest objection to modern "pop" science, the over confident way popular scientists misrepresent it as some kind of absolute source of knowledge. Historically scientists were aware of and comfortable with these epistemological truths but more recently scientism has taken hold and I think that's a backward step.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #382]

I think this is largely true, modern science (or perhaps "scientism" is a more accurate term these days) strives to interpret everything within the framework of uniformitarianism and causality, that is the preferred way to interpret observations. Because of this when something is interpreted that way it is then sometimes later proffered as evidence for uniformitarianism and causality, which is circular reasoning.

Wikipedia has this to start their article on scientism:

"Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values.

While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) also adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)"."

It is indeed very much a perjorative these days as used by the religious and/or antiscience crowd. Allowing for a 6000 year old "creation" that was made to look old is just invoking magic or god trickery, which science does not engage in. It cannot allow for such a random and made up explanation that is at odds with everything we do know about nature and the age of the Earth. The number of scientific disciplines you'd have to claim are wrong to support that notion (a 6000 year old "creation") is just nonsensical ... they can't all be so wrong simultaneously, yet still produce results in so many areas not related to religious issues (eg. oil exploration to name just one).

It sounds like you're trying to create a scenario where god magic, miracles, etc. have a place in explaining the natural world and even within the science disciplines, and anyone who doesn't agree with that is practicing "scientism." Fortunately for humanity, views like this are in the huge majority and don't influence policy in most parts of the world. So science can continue to investigate the natural world without having to allow for miracles or various interpretations of the many holy books that are out there, or corrupting itself with explanations that involve gods or other supernatural or imaginary beings. If it did that, it would cease to be science and may have to be called "religionism."

[Eloi]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #382]
About your comment, I'm going to take your own expression, "I think this is largely true", and what I mean is that I fully understand what you are saying, with one addition:

there are things that science has proven to be true beyond any doubt, although obviously (as I think you are implying) it could be reinterpreted if the framework in which it is analyzed were to change . It would be like making a three-dimensional object drawable on a two-dimensional plane; which can be done, but the figure would be very different from its original plan.

However, there are truths that cannot be reinterpreted, and that can be discovered and treated as realities in our own natural way of understanding things. For example, we know that angels appeared as men to the ancients, but what do they really look like in the spiritual realm? Only those who are going to live in heaven will know that (1 John 3:2).

True knowledge, whether it is what we would classify as "religious" or what we would call "scientific", can be analyzed in general in the same way, it is all real information that can be analyzed from different points of view. The issue is, as I said on the other hand, in the honest and well-intentioned dialogue.

The truth is that I don't like philosophizing that much, and I think I did it too much here... I don't know if I expressed correctly what I wanted to say either; The truth is that I don't feel very well at the moment. I hope I made myself understood.

Greetings.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #381]

We will always try to explain why it does not coincide with something that other people believe, because we consider the Scriptures to be totally true.

Right ... so it is really pointless to attempt to debate the scientific merits of various holy book accounts with people who cannot accept that they may be wrong. The science arguments, no matter how well supported, will always trumped by the holy book accounts by definition. Simple as that.

[Eloi]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #2]
Well, this forum is DEBATING CHRISTIANITY, and I am a Christian, so ... you decide.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #386]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #2]
Well, this forum is DEBATING CHRISTIANITY, and I am a Christian, so ... you decide.

Not sure I know what you are responding to. I didn't make post #2 in this thread, SH did. The forum title is "Debating Christianity and Religion", but this debate section is titled "Science and Religion", with the guideline "This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion." So debating the scientific age of Earth vs the legitimacy of the Genesis creation and flood stories, is squarely on topic, with the bible not being an authoritative source in this section.

Putting that together, a subject like the Genesis flood can be debated from both sides ... with science putting forth reasons why it cannot be literally true, and the religion side countering that view without referencing the bible story itself as proof that the account is literally true. But therein lies the problem for the religious side ... without using the bible as a source the arguments against the scientific conclusions are too weak and fall apart, or descend into miracles or magic as explanations which are outside of the realm of science.

[Eloi]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #387]
I have the order of appearance of the messages in the topics in reverse order; the latter appear first, and the numbering changes. So if I quote a message that appears to me as #2, it means that it was the penultimate one that was written. It is not a matter that I can change; This is how the forum itself is set up.

About the Flood, I already presented a lot of evidences, and there are more in a lot of other parts of the forum and by other forum members. You continue to say the same things like going around circles again and again and again and again and again ...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #384]

For example, we know that angels appeared as men to the ancients, but what do they really look like in the spiritual realm? Only those who are going to live in heaven will know that (1 John 3:2).

What we know is that there are stories that describe angels appearing to men long ago. What we don't know is whether angels exist or if heaven exists. So it is not possible to claim with certainty that either of these things actually exist ... only that we have stories in holy books that they do.

This is a fundamental difference between science and religion/faith. Sciencs says "show me the angels" and tries to find evidence of their existence, while religion simply proclaims they exist and that is all that is required. Again, trying to debate a science vs. religion subject with someone who blindly believes a holy book is pointless ... the science cannot be accepted if it is at odds with the holy book accounts, no matter how sound the science is.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #388]

This is how the forum itself is set up.

Hmmm ... the post I'm replying to here has the correct reply number. Anyway, all of the evidence I've ever seen on this forum from the religious side supporting the literal Noah's flood story revert to the claim that it must be true because the bible cannot be in error. None have ever refuted the science conclusions. Stalement, as usual.