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 #304]

Science knows the continents moved a lot. What it doesn't know is why and when.

But it does know a great deal about both why and when. Your choice to ignore it doesn't change that fact.

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

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

There are plenty of animations online to see the changes visually, with approximate time frames. None of it is consistent with biblical chronology ... by orders of magnitude.

Fitting this known quantity into a bible timeframe does indicate that the move was after the flood year. Now you can say science disagrees, but what you can't do is support that here. Why? Because I will expose it as faith based, rather than science.

There is no fitting it to a bible time frame. See above. So far all of your "exposing" is just statements that you don't personally believe anything presented, with zero backup or support. Personal incredulity is not exposing anything.

Show us how science debunked the bible or creation?

Why bother ... you'd just ignore it as you done with everything else science related that has been presented, then ask repeatedly for the same information again.

No? No Abraham either? Jacob? Moses? David? Keep us posted on where you draw the line.

Abraham and Moses are certainly fictional along with any other figure (Noah, Adam, etc. etc.) claimed to have lived for more than 100 years.

[brunumb]

Not sure about that. I am interested in hearing you tell us what these forces are and how they operate within the nucleus of an atom causing radioactive decay.

Why would I go off topic? The topic is not HOW things operate now. The issue is whether science knows that the forces and laws that make them operate as they do existed in the distant past on earth or not.

You brought it up within the discussion so all I am asking is for you to support your claim. I'm sure readers will reach the same conclusion that I have reached. You can't because it was completely invalid.

[dad1]

Putting the spiritual and creation squarely in the same bin as the non-existent or purely imaginary. Wishful thinking and faith are not pathways to the truth.

You can arrange your mind and beliefs any way you like. What you fail to do is support them here.

We can summarise your entire argument here with "'Tis not". That is all you have presented.

My point is that science is based wholly on faith and assumptions when it comes to creation and origin issues. Tis so.

[dad1]

Science knows the continents moved a lot. What it doesn't know is why and when.

On the contrary. If you study up a little on plate tectonics you might come to the realisation that the creationist version of it all happening in the framework of the biblical flood is impossible.

Not true. I looked into it. I am certain. If you want to stick to glib statements of faith about it, fine. If you want to talk turkey, we will see how you fare.

[dad1]

But it does know a great deal about both why and when. Your choice to ignore it doesn't change that fact.

No it does not.

If you would like to take a point out of your spam links and try to support/defend it, go ahead. This is not my first time round the block.

There are plenty of animations online to see the changes visually, with approximate time frames. None of it is consistent with biblical chronology ... by orders of magnitude.

Lots of animations about lion kings and mice on Disney channel also. Yes there were changes. How long that took is very open to debate.

There is no fitting it to a bible time frame.

Yes it is a perfect fit, and there is no other fit that works.

See above. So far all of your "exposing" is just statements that you don't personally believe anything presented, with zero backup or support. Personal incredulity is not exposing anything.

Except what is exposed is that you claim science but fail to produce and defend any. Why is that?

Why bother ... you'd just ignore it as you done with everything else science related that has been presented, then ask repeatedly for the same information again.

You mean I would expose that only beliefs are used as a basis. No ones needs ignore fairy tales, we just need to be sure no one confuses them with science.

Abraham and Moses are certainly fictional along with any other figure (Noah, Adam, etc. etc.) claimed to have lived for more than 100 years.

I see. So no Moses, Abraham, Noah. How about David? Keep us posted on who lived or not.

[JoeyKnothead]

The OP said that the bible is banned as any authoritative source or evidence.

Please remember that in this section of the site the Bible is not considered authoritative.

You really need a dictionary.

It said nothing about banning books.

Those who cry because science cannot deny or confirm some things above their paygrade are not my problem.

Lol

[otseng]

Moderator Warning

Please review our Rules.

Your inability to show your little religious claims to be evidenced does indeed show all of us that you talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

Your religious pulpit pounding is boring.

The measure of all reality and creation and the universe is not what you spitefully choose to accept, sorry. I kid you not.

Please debate without making personal comments about others.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #315]

If you would like to take a point out of your spam links and try to support/defend it, go ahead. This is not my first time round the block.

Spam links? There are volumes written about tectonic plates and continental drift. Wikipedia is a convenient source for summary articles, with links at the bottom of the articles to other references and sources. If you think all of this is spam that pretty much speaks for itself (ie. you either don't understand any of it, and/or have no interest in learning about it).

Yes it is a perfect fit, and there is no other fit that works.

And yet another baseless claim with no support.

Except what is exposed is that you claim science but fail to produce and defend any. Why is that?

You've been presented with lots of actual science and external links, but evidently all you can do is ignore it and repeat that no one is presenting any science or defending it, when it is obvious that is exactly what many of us are doing. Can you actually rebutt any of the science that has been presented? Or are you here only to complain about science because it destroys your creation beliefs?

[dad1]

The OP said that the bible is banned as any authoritative source or evidence.

Please remember that in this section of the site the Bible is not considered authoritative.

You really need a dictionary.

It said nothing about banning books.

Those who cry because science cannot deny or confirm some things above their paygrade are not my problem.

Lol

Well in the thread it was made clear it was not accepted as evidence. Funny that other beliefs are.

[dad1]

Spam links? There are volumes written about tectonic plates and continental drift. Wikipedia is a convenient source for summary articles, with links at the bottom of the articles to other references and sources. If you think all of this is spam that pretty much speaks for itself (ie. you either don't understand any of it, and/or have no interest in learning about it).

You can't spam links and expect people to do a reading assignment. Did I spam the bible and other books without citing a particular point? No. So you need to make a point from your links and then discuss/defend it rather than offer huge reading lists. I thought I mentioned I knew that it was faith based? All of it. So why would I care about religious doctrines? Make a point and use links as support.

And yet another baseless claim with no support.

If it was baseless you could point out something that did not fit. We wait.

You've been presented with lots of actual science and external links, but evidently all you can do is ignore it and repeat that no one is presenting any science or defending it, when it is obvious that is exactly what many of us are doing.

We are not here to devout our lives to any book or spam list you care to post, as if it helped you.
You need to make a point and use a link as support, so we can check. For example, if you said we see the continents move at a certain observed rate, we could look at that. I would ask how long we have observed this rate. I would ask if most of the move may have been fast and could what we see today be a residual movement. Or maybe I would ask if you could prove that this rate always was the same in the past...etc. You make a point and I cross examine you. That's how it works, not spamming reading lists! (that I know to be wholly belief based anyhow)

Can you actually rebutt any of the science that has been presented?

I wait for you to present some. Make a point. Posting belief based spam is not something you should expect anyone to rebut.

Or are you here only to complain about science because it destroys your creation beliefs?

Don't flatter yourself. The belief set of so called science does not even cause me to bat an eye, let alone destroy anything.