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.

[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.

More solipsism. And under the same framework, you have no way to tell if Christianity, the Bible, or anything else you believe isn't some sort of illusion or trick played by a devious god who's leading you astray.

Again we see a creationist who, in their eagerness to wave away inconvenient scientific reality, ends up throwing their own religious beliefs out the window. Oops.

Did you actually disagree with something I said? if so, what? I can't tell if your expressing disagreement or just disapproval.

I'm pointing out how your own approach to waving away inconvenient science also renders your religious beliefs meaningless. If find that rather odd, but if you're okay with it....I suppose that's fine.

No, still not seeing it. What did I actually write that you interpreted as "waving away inconvenient science"?

[Jose Fly]

[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.

More solipsism. And under the same framework, you have no way to tell if Christianity, the Bible, or anything else you believe isn't some sort of illusion or trick played by a devious god who's leading you astray.

Again we see a creationist who, in their eagerness to wave away inconvenient scientific reality, ends up throwing their own religious beliefs out the window. Oops.

Did you actually disagree with something I said? if so, what? I can't tell if your expressing disagreement or just disapproval.

I'm pointing out how your own approach to waving away inconvenient science also renders your religious beliefs meaningless. If find that rather odd, but if you're okay with it....I suppose that's fine.

No, still not seeing it. What did I actually write that you interpreted as "waving away inconvenient science"?

It's the same solipsist framework you've been citing for a while now....science can't really know anything because maybe the gods made it all seem different than it really is.

"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."

Again I have to ask: Can you name one thing, outside of your own existence, that you know to be 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.

More solipsism. And under the same framework, you have no way to tell if Christianity, the Bible, or anything else you believe isn't some sort of illusion or trick played by a devious god who's leading you astray.

Again we see a creationist who, in their eagerness to wave away inconvenient scientific reality, ends up throwing their own religious beliefs out the window. Oops.

Did you actually disagree with something I said? if so, what? I can't tell if your expressing disagreement or just disapproval.

I'm pointing out how your own approach to waving away inconvenient science also renders your religious beliefs meaningless. If find that rather odd, but if you're okay with it....I suppose that's fine.

No, still not seeing it. What did I actually write that you interpreted as "waving away inconvenient science"?

It's the same solipsist framework you've been citing for a while now....science can't really know anything because maybe the gods made it all seem different than it really is.

"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."

Again I have to ask: Can you name one thing, outside of your own existence, that you know to be true?

Yes, but are you agreeing with what I said in that quote or disagreeing?

As for your question yes, the future and the past do not exist, I think I know that to be a true proposition.

[Jose Fly]

Yes, but are you agreeing with what I said in that quote or disagreeing?

Of course I disagree. You've not shown any evidence for any aspect of your view.

As for your question yes, the future and the past do not exist, I think I know that to be a true proposition.

You only think you know? Why?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, but are you agreeing with what I said in that quote or disagreeing?

Of course I disagree. You've not shown any evidence for any aspect of your view.

So you affirm that science can distinguish between a truly ancient universe and one created six thousand years ago that just has an apparent appearance of great age? Very well, how can we distinguish between these two? This is the claim that requires evidence, the claim that we can distinguish.

As for your question yes, the future and the past do not exist, I think I know that to be a true proposition.

You only think you know? Why?

Yes, informal sloppiness I agree, I do affirm that I know that the past and future do not exist, all I ever experience is "now".

[Jose Fly]

So you affirm that science can distinguish between a truly ancient universe and one created six thousand years ago that just has an apparent appearance of great age? Very well, how can we distinguish between these two? This is the claim that requires evidence, the claim that we can distinguish.

I'd say "nice try", but nah.

Your question assumes your assertions, i.e., that gods exist, that they create universes, and that they do so in deceptive ways.

Yes, informal sloppiness I agree, I do affirm that I know that the past and future do not exist, all I ever experience is "now".

How do you know that?

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you affirm that science can distinguish between a truly ancient universe and one created six thousand years ago that just has an apparent appearance of great age? Very well, how can we distinguish between these two? This is the claim that requires evidence, the claim that we can distinguish.

I'd say "nice try", but nah.

Your question assumes your assertions, i.e., that gods exist, that they create universes, and that they do so in deceptive ways.

So you affirm that we can distinguish between the two alternative but refuse to say how you think we can do that, OK well that's a claim unsupported by evidence right there.

Yes, informal sloppiness I agree, I do affirm that I know that the past and future do not exist, all I ever experience is "now".

How do you know that?

It is self evident.

[Miles]

Yes, but are you agreeing with what I said in that quote or disagreeing?

Of course I disagree. You've not shown any evidence for any aspect of your view.

So you affirm that science can distinguish between a truly ancient universe and one created six thousand years ago that just has an apparent appearance of great age? Very well, how can we distinguish between these two? This is the claim that requires evidence, the claim that we can distinguish.

Just to step in for a minute.

"Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. This is referred to as strong priors and essentially involves stripping the potential errors in other parts of the model to render the accuracy of actual observational data directly into the concluded result. Although this is not a valid procedure in all contexts (as noted in the accompanying caveat: "based on the fact we have assumed the underlying model we used is correct"), the age given is thus accurate to the specified error (since this error represents the error in the instrument used to gather the raw data input into the model).

The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2018 data alone is 13.787±0.020 billion years. This number represents an accurate "direct" measurement of the age of the universe (other methods typically involve Hubble's law and the age of the oldest stars in globular clusters, etc.). It is possible to use different methods for determining the same parameter (in this case – the age of the universe) and arrive at different answers with no overlap in the "errors". To best avoid the problem, it is common to show two sets of uncertainties; one related to the actual measurement and the other related to the systematic errors of the model being used.

An important component to the analysis of data used to determine the age of the universe (e.g. from Planck) therefore is to use a Bayesian statistical analysis, which normalizes the results based upon the priors (i.e. the model). This quantifies any uncertainty in the accuracy of a measurement due to a particular model used.
.
.
.
The first reasonably accurate measurement of the rate of expansion of the universe, a numerical value now known as the Hubble constant, was made in 1958 by astronomer Allan Sandage His measured value for the Hubble constant came very close to the value range generally accepted today.

However Sandage, like Einstein, did not believe his own results at the time of discovery. Sandage proposed new theories of cosmogony to explain this discrepancy. This issue was more or less resolved by improvements in the theoretical models used for estimating the ages of stars. As of 2013, using the latest models for stellar evolution, the estimated age of the oldest known star is 14.46±0.8 billion years.

The discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation announced in 1965 finally brought an effective end to the remaining scientific uncertainty over the expanding universe. It was a chance result from work by two teams less than 60 miles apart. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were trying to detect radio wave echoes with a supersensitive antenna. The antenna persistently detected a low, steady, mysterious noise in the microwave region that was evenly spread over the sky, and was present day and night. After testing, they became certain that the signal did not come from the Earth, the Sun, or our galaxy, but from outside our own galaxy, but could not explain it. At the same time another team, Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, were attempting to detect low level noise which might be left over from the Big Bang and could prove whether the Big Bang theory was correct. The two teams realized that the detected noise was in fact radiation left over from the Big Bang, and that this was strong evidence that the theory was correct. Since then, a great deal of other evidence has strengthened and confirmed this conclusion, and refined the estimated age of the universe to its current figure.

The space probes WMAP, launched in 2001, and Planck, launched in 2009, produced data that determines the Hubble constant and the age of the universe independent of galaxy distances, removing the largest source of error.
Source: Wikipedia

.

[Jose Fly]

So you affirm that we can distinguish between the two alternative but refuse to say how you think we can do that, OK well that's a claim unsupported by evidence right there.

Uh.....no, that's not what I said at all. In fact, your characterization is so disconnected from what I said, it's rather bizarre.

It is self evident.

How so?

[Eloi]

Evolutionists have no direct evidence for evolution...

However, the age of the Universe is scientifically calculated quite accurately. There are several scientific methods currently used to make the calculation, as explained before by Miles. As I said in another comment, the Bible DOES NOT SAY when the Universe was created, so there is no reason to deny the more or less exact calculations that have been made.