Moderator: Moderators
For debate:EarthScienceguy wrote: There is now more evidence than ever before about 6-day creation.
I have. I previously mentioned 3 things that are more than sufficient to disprove a literal 6 day creation event:If there is actual science on the topic, why is it you have not posted it yet?
A belief in age is not establishing anything. All of what science says about origins either on earth or in the universe is 100% belief based. That is why you will not be able to show otherwise here.What science has established about the universe we inhabit is clearly at odds with those ancient superstitions.
We understand why you would like to try to portray your belief set you call science as something else. Sorry, not going to happen.If the scientific method may not speak directly to magic, gods and spirits, it can produce information and knowledge about our world, and much of that clearly contradicts the alleged involvement of those entities in our existence.
Try to read for comprehension, science cannot deal with or cover anything spiritual such as creation. Period.Now, perhaps you should read the OP and respond on topic by offering your evidence for the 6-day creation.
You might as well run through prayer beads as cite 100% belief based statements. The so called age of the earth or universe is totally faith based. Really. Try not to confuse your beliefs with fact or knowledge. One example of why is the claim light took billions of years to reach earth from elsewhere in the universe. That is religion. Faith. Fable. Not science. Not fact. NOT known. Not testable. Not observable. Science has zero clue what time out there in the distant universe is like. They have assumed it is identical to time as we experience and know it here. Period. That is why they assume light that may have taken (for all we know) seconds to reach earth took billions of years!DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:19 pm
I have. I previously mentioned 3 things that are more than sufficient to disprove a literal 6 day creation event:
1) Science has shown the age of the Earth to be 4.6 billions years, not 6000 years. It has also shown that the sequence of "creation" described in Genesis is incorrect
That is a conflation of made up ill founded assumptions about what we should expect from the biblical events. There also was some major things going on after the flood year, such as probably the rapid continental movement and mountain building (subduction, uplift,pushing together of land mass to form mountains etc etc etc) So the high mountains of today were not here in the time of the flood. Your scenario is a myth. A faith based sloppy myth falsely imagined to be science.2) Science as shown that at no point since humans have lived on Earth was it ever covered with water above the highest mountain. There is zero geological evidence for such an event, and no source for that much water. Noah's flood is a myth (without miracles of course, but scientific analysis does not consider miracles).
That has zero relation to how Noah's body functioned in the far past! Nor how nature and forces and laws existed that resulted in affecting bodies at the time. What you do is obsess on the present and then try to impose this reality on the unknown past by faith, and faith alone. Please cease and desist on calling that science. It is ridiculous religion. I would offer such foolish slopped together strawmen scenarios as evidence for spiritual influences on men! It is not healthy or normal or sane or sound or reasoned.3) Science has shown that the human body cannot continue to function for many centuries.
That is absurd nonsense that displays a truly profound lack of comprehension of God and Scripture. By Gen chapter two it was all over and finished and done. Completed. Chapter twp goes back and looks with more detail at some of what was finished already. Calling it some alternate and different account is screaming foolishness. It is also an insult to God and intelligence."Perhaps most significantly for those attempting to harmonize Genesis with science, there is a different order of creative events in each chapter. To begin with, the two creation accounts open with different (indeed, opposite) descriptions of the initial state of the world.
So your entire rebuttal is to wave your hands and claim science is the same as religion and everything is based on faith (despite the fact that everyone knows that is nonsense)? Is that all you've got to dispute my 3 examples? Nothing serious or scientifically legitimate?That is religion. Faith. Fable. Not science. Not fact. NOT known. Not testable. Not observable.
Not true. Your faith based claims are exposed as being unsupported religion. Work on that, Feel free to try to research and defend your religion. The age of the earth IS faith based in science. Etc. Rather than protest, you need to pony up the evidence for your claims. Prove that the nature in Noah's day was the same, so that he also would live the same time as us? Sorry if you thought your glib statements of faith were actually science!DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:54 pm [Replying to dad1 in post #263]
So your entire rebuttal is to wave your hands and claim science is the same as religion and everything is based on faith (despite the fact that everyone knows that is nonsense)? Is that all you've got to dispute my 3 examples? Nothing serious or scientifically legitimate?That is religion. Faith. Fable. Not science. Not fact. NOT known. Not testable. Not observable.
It has been observed that there is a certain amount of Uranium to a certain amount of Lead, thorium, or Lead 234. That is what science has observed. The interpretation of those observations is what separates atheistic cosmology from theistic cosmology. Or we even could call it materialistic cosmology verse theistic cosmology.1) Science has shown the age of the Earth to be 4.6 billions years, not 6000 years. It has also shown that the sequence of "creation" described in Genesis is incorrect
Except for the observation that all fossils were formed in a water environment. And that there were major extinctions in the past. And that even materialistic cosmology has to theorize worldwide cataclysmic events to explain what is found in the rock record.2) Science as shown that at no point since humans have lived on Earth was it ever covered with water above the highest mountain. There is zero geological evidence for such an event, and no source for that much water. Noah's flood is a myth (without miracles of course, but scientific analysis does not consider miracles).
It is really not known for sure what causes aging. Many theorize that UV light is the major cause of aging. So how can you say for sure that it is impossible that men cannot live to be much much older? I am actually of the belief that men will figure out the secret to long life. I do not believe that men's decreased life span is a result of God's supernatural hand but atmospheric changes on the Earth. Because Revelation says that men will long to die but they cannot. But I would not die on that hill at all. It could as just as well be an act of God.3) Science has shown that the human body cannot continue to function for many centuries. The oldest human ever documented lived 122 years, and it is very rare for someone to make it past 110 years. Ages of 900+ years (especially >2000 years ago when life expectancies were much less than today) is physiologically impossible.
This one caught my eye. Frankly I'm surprised that evolutionists aren't just a little surprised by this one. Surely over many many millions of years, we'd expect humans to have evolved to live a bit longer than the 75 or so years average that we do see? There are numerous organisms around that readily live for over 200 years and no doubt that lifespan has evolved to become that. So why the stasis in human lifespan? Why don't we live for a thousand years after all the time we've had to evolve?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 12:19 pm 3) Science has shown that the human body cannot continue to function for many centuries. The oldest human ever documented lived 122 years, and it is very rare for someone to make it past 110 years. Ages of 900+ years (especially >2000 years ago when life expectancies were much less than today) is physiologically impossible.
Why? Why would evolution result in longer lifetimes over time for any living thing? There is no reason to believe that evolution would produce that result. Homo sapiens have only been around for a few hundred thousand years (not many millions) and life spans have increased over time due to better medical treatments and medicines, vaccines, better food supplies, work safety improvements ... none of which are evolutionary developments.Surely over many many millions of years, we'd expect humans to have evolved to live a bit longer than the 75 or so years average that we do see?
Not by you. All you've done so far is make baseless assertions to this effect, with no backup, no external links, or anything but personal opinion repeated over and over. How about "exposing" why the science result of a 4.6 billion year old Earth is not correct ... beyond just writing it off as "faith"? What about the methodology used to arrive at that date is wrong, and why?Your faith based claims are exposed as being unsupported religion.
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. 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.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed May 25, 2022 1:17 pm
Not by you. All you've done so far is make baseless assertions to this effect, with no backup, no external links, or anything but personal opinion repeated over and over. How about "exposing" why the science result of a 4.6 billion year old Earth is not correct ... beyond just writing it off as "faith"? What about the methodology used to arrive at that date is wrong, and why?
