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]

I'm not a solipsist what more do you want from me?

You say you're not, but the arguments you put forth indicate otherwise. For example, you argue that science must first make the basic assumption that things truly are as they appear rather than being some sort of illusion from a god, who created it one way but made it seem as if it came about completely differently, and did so in ways that we cannot detect.

No, you are the one who used the term "illusion" because that fact that you might get something wrong must always be someone else's fault.

My response is, that's the case with everything. We all make the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it, in everything we do.

Do not assume that I assume as you do. Again, self evident truths are not assumptions.

So regardless of what label we slap on that, I still wonder.....what exactly is your point? Science, like every other human endeavor, makes the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it. Therefore...........?

That the world exists is not something we've disagreed on Jose. That it is billions of years old however is true only if we assume uniformitarianism, this is not solipsism, I regard it as self evident that the world exists, I do not assume it exists.

Therefore if we do not assume uniformitarianism we can create a totally rational argument that the earth is a few thousand years old and was created in six days, this is not new, scholars, theologians, philosophers and most scientists during the scientific revolution all understood this, it has never been regarded as remarkable at all.

I guess this is just what denialism forces people to do....talk themselves in circles with no consideration about maintaining consistency.

You posited that perhaps the universe was really created by a god 6,000 years ago, and it only appears to be billions of years old because that same god made it seem that way.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! over and over you do this. Jose it seems that way to you, it does not seem that way to a young earth creationist.

But you apparently only want that to apply to the age of the universe (or earth). Why?

Now what are you talking about?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #0]

Carbon dating tree match with biological dating-tree rings and varves:
Image

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf

Carbon 14 dating is dependent on the ratio of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere remains constant. But that is definitely not the case.

• "In addition, only fossil fuels are consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon in today’s atmosphere. Different kinds of carbon-containing material have different relative amounts of “light” carbon-12, “heavy” carbon-13, and radioactive carbon-14. Plant matter is enriched in carbon-12, because its lighter weight is more readily used by plants during photosynthesis. Volcanic emissions are enriched in carbon-13. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and the ocean are roughly the same. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it decays predictably over time. Young organic matter has more carbon-14 than older organic matter, and fossil fuels have no measurable carbon-14 at all.
  
  As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen over the past century or more, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 has fallen, which means that the source of the extra carbon dioxide must be enriched in carbon-12. Meanwhile, the relative amount of carbon-14—radioactive carbon—has declined. The record of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is complicated by nuclear bomb testing after 1950, which doubled the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. After the nuclear test ban treaty in 1963, the excess atmospheric carbon-14 began to decline as it dispersed into the oceans and the land biosphere."

• https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... sed-humans

If CO2 was higher in the past in which there is evidence in rock samples and in the size of the fossil fauna. There is no evidence that the C12-C14 has been constant over millions of years.


EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:45 pm
This has the assumption that all of the argon was released when the rock was in the molten state. This has been shown to be incorrect. Snelling, A. A. 1998. Andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the implications for potassium-argon ‘dating’, in: Walsh, R. E., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, p. 503–525. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

1.The fake problem of excess Argon.
'Thus while Snelling implied that Dalrymple [1969] found severe problems with K-Ar dating when the truth is quite the opposite. Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. Thus Dalrymple’s data is not consistent with a young Earth whatsoever. Indeed, if Dalrymple’s data is representative, 3 times out of 26 the K-Ar method will give a too young date (though by only an extremely trivial amount for a rock that is really millions of years old). The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected (see the previous essay). Even that significant error is only 1.19 million years (and not the 1.60 million years that Snelling claimed). If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years. Thus this data is strongly supportive of mainstream geology.' [author's emphasis]”
http://www.oldearth.org/blind.htm

It is not just Dalrymple getting these results he just gives a theory as to why it happnes.

• Laughlin, et al., found that the olivine, pyroxene, and plagioclase in Quaternary basalts of the Zuni-Bandera volcanic field of New Mexico contained very significant quantities of excess 40Ar*, as did the olivine and clinopyroxene phenocrysts in Quaternary flows from New Zealand volcanoes. Laughlin, A. E., J. Poths, H. A. Healey, S. Reneau, and G. Wolde Gabriel, 1994. Dating of Quaternary basalts using the cosmogenic 3He and 14C methods with implications for excess 40Ar. Geology 22:135–138.

• Patterson, D. B., M. Honda, and I. McDougall, 1994. Noble gases in mafic phenocrysts and xenoliths from New Zealand. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58:4411–4427.

• Poths, Healey, and Laughlin separated olivine and clinopyroxene phenocrysts from young basalts from New Mexico and Nevada and then measured “ubiquitous excess argon” in them.Poths, J., H. Healey, and A. W. Laughlin, 1993. Ubiquitous excess argon in very young basalts. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 25:A462.

• Damon, Laughlin, and Precious have reported several instances of phenocrysts with K/Ar “ages” 17 million years greater than that of the whole rocks, and one K/Ar “date” on olivine phenocrysts of greater than 110 Ma in a recent (<13,000 year old) basalt Damon, P. E., A. W. Laughlin, and J. K. Precious, 1967. Problem of excess argon-40 in volcanic rocks. Radioactive dating methods and low-level counting, pp. 463–481. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.

• Damon, et al., thus suggested that large phenocrysts in volcanic rocks contain the excess 40Ar* because their size prevents them from completely degassing before the flows cool, but Dalrymple concluded that there does not appear to be any correlation of excess 40Ar* with large phenocrysts or with any other petrological or petrographic parameter. Dalrymple, Ref. 121.

• Most investigators have come to the obvious conclusion that the excess 40Ar* had to have been present in the molten lavas when extruded, which then did not completely degas as they cooled, the excess 40Ar* becoming “trapped” in the constituent minerals, and in some instances, the rock fabrics themselves. Laboratory experiments have tested the solubility of argon in synthetic basalt melts and their constituent minerals near 1300°C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. Broadhurst, C. L., M. J. Drake, B.E. Hagee, and T. J. Benatowicz, 1990. Solubility and partitioning of Ar in anorthite, diopside, fosterite, spinel, and synthetic basaltic liquids. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 54:299–309. Broadhurst, C. L., M. J. Drake, B. E. Hagee, and T. J. Benatowicz, 1992. Solubility and partitioning of Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe in minerals and synthetic basaltic melts. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56:709–723.

• In a different experiment, Karpinskaya, Ostrovskiy, and Shanin heated muscovite to 740–860°C under high argon pressures (2800–5000 atmospheres) for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours.160 The muscovite absorbed significant quantities of argon, producing K/Ar “ages” of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed argon appeared like ordinary radiogenic argon (40Ar*). Karpinskaya subsequently synthesized muscovite from a colloidal gel under similar argon pressures and temperatures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% argon at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4000 atmospheres. Karpinskaya, T. B., I. A. Ostrovskiy, and L. L. Shanin, 1961. Synthetic introduction of argon into mica at high pressures and temperatures. Isv Akad Nauk S.S.S.R. Geology Series 8:87–89 Karpinskaya, T. B., 1967. Synthesis of argon muscovite. International Geology Review 9:1493–1495.

Dalrymple also got negative dates that he did report.

Dalrymple that some modern lava samples actually yield negative K-Ar model “ages,” apparently due to excess 36Ar

Dalrymple even suggested three possible explanations that might account for the excess 36Ar178:

• incorporation of “primitive argon,”

• production of 36Ar by the radioactive decay of 36Cl, or

• fractionation of atmospheric argon by diffusion .

So why did Dalrymple give three possible suggestions for the excess Ar if it was so accurate?

2. We can analyze rock forming today. They don’t show for example high Sr ration. They are all Rb.

What? Do no understand what you are trying to say.

3. Isochron dating does not make assumptions about parent material in a sample.

I did not say anything about isochron dating.

4. 40 Ar/39 Ar dates of Sanidine rocks from Casti Amanti match with the historical records of the Vesuvius eruption in Ancient Italy.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:45 pm
This is dependent on the planet formation theory. Which has major problems.
Sir zircon has uranium in its structure. It rejects lead when forming.
So new zircon rocks will contain no lead. Therefore any lead found is from decay of uranium. Since we know the rate of decay of uranium we can use the ratio lead/uranium in a reliable manner to date the mineral.

Zircon crystals produce the piezoelectric in which the z-pinch theory says will produce the uranium and the lead either by decay or fusion.



EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Mar 15, 2022 2:45 pm
Uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and can change into Plutonium into Pu-239 and then Pu-239 can absorb a neutron and turn into Pu-240. Pu-240 actually undergoes spontaneous fission very quickly.

In practice, 239 Pu will invariably contain a certain amount of 240 Pu
due to the tendency of 239Pu to absorb an additional neutron during production. 240 Pu's high rate of spontaneous fission events makes it an undesirable contaminant. Weapons-grade plutonium contains no more than 7.0% 240 Pu
Where do the neutrons come from the good old z-pinch. That gives of neutron when fusion takes place because of the Z-pinch. With the problems that stellar evolution has the accumulation of damaged zones, or tracks is more likely caused by z-pinch fusion than by the spontaneous fission of uranium 238.

same as above.

The fission tracks are very sensible to temperature.
Any hypothesis I have seen so far implied conditions that would lead to destruction of these tracks.

Ok, get out a sheet of paper you are about ready to learn something here. Fusion in stars continues to happen with larger and larger atoms until it gets to Iron. When Iron begins being made it marks the deather of a star. Why you may ask because fusion up until Iron is exothermicm, fusion above the atomic mass of iron is endothermic. Therefore very little if any heat is produced in the Z-pinch (Stanislav Adamenko, “Results of Experiments on Collective Nuclear Reactions in Superdense Substance,” Proton-21 Electrodynamics Laboratory, 2004, pp. 1–26. For details see
www.proton21.com.ua/articles/Booklet_en.pdf.)

So a star does not gain energy if fuses iron.

Any layering, in particular, you are speaking of here?
From today eruptions we know that volcanoes grow by ~ a meter every century. The highest altitude of the island of Hawaii is Mauna Kea 10,200 m above ocean floor.
100 years/m * 10,200 m = ~ 1,020,000 years old.

That does not mean that was always the case.

• On November 14, 1963, a new island emerged from the sea. Surtsey is about 20 miles (32 km) off the southern coast of Iceland. It began as an undersea volcanic eruption that built an island over the course of 3 1/2 years. Today, Surtsey is off-limits to everyone except scientists. That’s because the island has become a natural laboratory for studying the colonization of plants and animals. https://earthsky.org/earth/surtsey-and- ... w-islands/

Thanks to continental drift Atlantic Ocean grows wider every year by 2.5 cm.
The ocean is 3,700 km wide.
(3,700 km * 100, 000 cm/km)/(2.5 cm/year) = 148, 000, 000 years ago American continent started to get away from African continent.

• van Hinsbergen and his colleagues have mapped many descending plates (dubbed “slabs”), scattered throughout the mantle, oozing and sagging inexorably toward the core-mantle boundary 2,900 kilometers (1,800 miles) below our feet, in an “Atlas of the Underworld.” Some slabs are so old they were tectonic plates on Earth’s surface long before the first dinosaurs evolved https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10 ... e-thought/

How is this even possible? Equilibrium should not take tens of millions of years.

Here the problem is that there is a tectonic plate graveyard under the pacific ocean. How are these plates found you ask? It is because of differences in temperature. If these plates have been in the mantel for millions of years why are they still hard enough to even cause deep earthquakes.

Continental drift supports radiometric dating.

It cannot becuase of the plates that can still be detected in the mantle.

Let's not avoid my main point: The myriad of methods of dating which all support each other.
We have biological clocks, radioactive decay clocks, magnetical clocks, geological clocks, ice accumulation clocks.

There are actually more that say that the earth is not that old.

When one is positing the laws of the universe coincidently changed in such a way and that the all the clocks coincidently changed in such a way that they support each other showing a false answer: that the earth is young is leaving the real of possibility and getting in the realm of magical thinking which leads to the idea of God manipulating the earth or allowing Satan to manipulate the earth. Which leads to the obvious conclusion of trickery.

I did not say that the clocks changed. Deep time says that the clocks changed. Men have said that the earth is not that old much longer than deep time has been around.

3.
If we posit an accelerated process there is a problem. We have to 4 billions of radioactive and heat decay, 4 billions of years of plate tectonics and continental movements, 4 billions of years of geological mountain building and erosion, 4 billions of years of asteroid impacts, 4 billions of years of volcanic activity all cramped in a very short period of time.
All this would increase heat and radiation so much that would make it impossible for anything to survive or last. Rocks and earth crust would vaporize.

The z-pinch does not produce any excess heat.

4. Off course a huge number scientists from geology, biology, botany, zoology, genetic, neurobiology, medicine, psychiatry, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, climatology and most historian scholars-new testament scholars who devoted all their lives to study, who most likely are/were more intelligent then you, are/were all wrong on so many subjects is baffling and you, a mere average human being, are right.

The starting points of cosmology and evolution are the only discipline we are discussing. These starting points drive all of the other disciplines into error. They have been sold bad ideas that are simply not true.

Q: How likely is that that belief which contradicts so many fields of study while considering we have functioning satellites, GPS, phones, PCs, internet, TVs, all kinds of transportations systems, vaccines, antibiotics, all kind of medicines, home heating systems, Electric Light, air conditioning, fridges, self-driving cars all because of the above people from all those fields?

This has nothing to do with any of those. What are you talking about? Nice try at sensationalizing your argument. Common tactic. It is actually deep time that is unscientific. Especially, deep time that does not require a creator. Anyone that does not believe that this universe was created by God has separated themselves from reality. It means that they no longer believe that every event has a cause. And that does violoate, geology, biology, botany, zoology, genetic, neurobiology, medicine, psychiatry, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, and climatology.

If you do not believe that there is a God in heaven you need to come back to the real world where all events have a cause.

[Jose Fly]

I'm not a solipsist what more do you want from me?

You say you're not, but the arguments you put forth indicate otherwise. For example, you argue that science must first make the basic assumption that things truly are as they appear rather than being some sort of illusion from a god, who created it one way but made it seem as if it came about completely differently, and did so in ways that we cannot detect.

No, you are the one who used the term "illusion" because that fact that you might get something wrong must always be someone else's fault.

My response is, that's the case with everything. We all make the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it, in everything we do.

Do not assume that I assume as you do. Again, self evident truths are not assumptions.

So regardless of what label we slap on that, I still wonder.....what exactly is your point? Science, like every other human endeavor, makes the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it. Therefore...........?

That the world exists is not something we've disagreed on Jose. That it is billions of years old however is true only if we assume uniformitarianism, this is not solipsism, I regard it as self evident that the world exists, I do not assume it exists.

Therefore if we do not assume uniformitarianism we can create a totally rational argument that the earth is a few thousand years old and was created in six days, this is not new, scholars, theologians, philosophers and most scientists during the scientific revolution all understood this, it has never been regarded as remarkable at all.

I guess this is just what denialism forces people to do....talk themselves in circles with no consideration about maintaining consistency.

You posited that perhaps the universe was really created by a god 6,000 years ago, and it only appears to be billions of years old because that same god made it seem that way.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! over and over you do this. Jose it seems that way to you, it does not seem that way to a young earth creationist.

But you apparently only want that to apply to the age of the universe (or earth). Why?

Now what are you talking about?

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. If you have an actual position that you're advocating here, I suggest you state it clearly. If there is an actual point behind you bringing up the possibility that perhaps the gods have manipulated things to make them appear ancient when they're really young, I suggest you state it clearly.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not a solipsist what more do you want from me?

You say you're not, but the arguments you put forth indicate otherwise. For example, you argue that science must first make the basic assumption that things truly are as they appear rather than being some sort of illusion from a god, who created it one way but made it seem as if it came about completely differently, and did so in ways that we cannot detect.

No, you are the one who used the term "illusion" because that fact that you might get something wrong must always be someone else's fault.

My response is, that's the case with everything. We all make the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it, in everything we do.

Do not assume that I assume as you do. Again, self evident truths are not assumptions.

So regardless of what label we slap on that, I still wonder.....what exactly is your point? Science, like every other human endeavor, makes the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it. Therefore...........?

That the world exists is not something we've disagreed on Jose. That it is billions of years old however is true only if we assume uniformitarianism, this is not solipsism, I regard it as self evident that the world exists, I do not assume it exists.

Therefore if we do not assume uniformitarianism we can create a totally rational argument that the earth is a few thousand years old and was created in six days, this is not new, scholars, theologians, philosophers and most scientists during the scientific revolution all understood this, it has never been regarded as remarkable at all.

I guess this is just what denialism forces people to do....talk themselves in circles with no consideration about maintaining consistency.

You posited that perhaps the universe was really created by a god 6,000 years ago, and it only appears to be billions of years old because that same god made it seem that way.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! over and over you do this. Jose it seems that way to you, it does not seem that way to a young earth creationist.

But you apparently only want that to apply to the age of the universe (or earth). Why?

Now what are you talking about?

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. If you have an actual position that you're advocating here, I suggest you state it clearly. If there is an actual point behind you bringing up the possibility that perhaps the gods have manipulated things to make them appear ancient when they're really young, I suggest you state it clearly.

My position is precisely what I said in this post to which you eagerly and vociferously responded.

namely:

In other words the 6 day creation does not conflict with any observations, it conflicts only with the assumption of uniformitarianism.

I think that is quite clear actually, perhaps you should pay attention more.

[Jose Fly]

I'm not a solipsist what more do you want from me?

You say you're not, but the arguments you put forth indicate otherwise. For example, you argue that science must first make the basic assumption that things truly are as they appear rather than being some sort of illusion from a god, who created it one way but made it seem as if it came about completely differently, and did so in ways that we cannot detect.

No, you are the one who used the term "illusion" because that fact that you might get something wrong must always be someone else's fault.

My response is, that's the case with everything. We all make the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it, in everything we do.

Do not assume that I assume as you do. Again, self evident truths are not assumptions.

So regardless of what label we slap on that, I still wonder.....what exactly is your point? Science, like every other human endeavor, makes the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it. Therefore...........?

That the world exists is not something we've disagreed on Jose. That it is billions of years old however is true only if we assume uniformitarianism, this is not solipsism, I regard it as self evident that the world exists, I do not assume it exists.

Therefore if we do not assume uniformitarianism we can create a totally rational argument that the earth is a few thousand years old and was created in six days, this is not new, scholars, theologians, philosophers and most scientists during the scientific revolution all understood this, it has never been regarded as remarkable at all.

I guess this is just what denialism forces people to do....talk themselves in circles with no consideration about maintaining consistency.

You posited that perhaps the universe was really created by a god 6,000 years ago, and it only appears to be billions of years old because that same god made it seem that way.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! over and over you do this. Jose it seems that way to you, it does not seem that way to a young earth creationist.

But you apparently only want that to apply to the age of the universe (or earth). Why?

Now what are you talking about?

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. If you have an actual position that you're advocating here, I suggest you state it clearly. If there is an actual point behind you bringing up the possibility that perhaps the gods have manipulated things to make them appear ancient when they're really young, I suggest you state it clearly.

My position is precisely what I said in this post to which you eagerly and vociferously responded.

namely:

In other words the 6 day creation does not conflict with any observations, it conflicts only with the assumption of uniformitarianism.

I think that is quite clear actually, perhaps you should pay attention more.

So is it your position that everything was different in the past? Or that only some things were different?

[brunumb]

Prior to my conversion I can see that I tricked myself, I willingly and willfully chose to interpret the world in a way I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be Godless, I wanted to believe in a Star Trek like future, where we look forward to a wonderful future brought to us by science and technology, that desire was what drove my choice - it was a choice too, even if that wasn't clear to me at the time.

I really don't understand that. Why would anyone want the world to be godless?

Because we are selfish and want to do as we please.

Speak for yourself.

I actually want there to be a loving, caring God who will grant me life after death and the prospect of meeting loved ones again and living in peace and harmony. Who wouldn't?

But you don't else you'd recognize what I'm saying to you. Humans are innately hostile to God, it is how we were created. You perhaps want "a God" but on your terms, not God's, you have no interest in a complete change of how you think, you are unwilling to abandon your comfortable beliefs, the cozy physical ("fleshly" as it is sometimes termed) world. You might want a God that conforms to your desires, a God of your making.

But, unfortunately, despite what I would prefer my brain has rejected all of that based on everything it has experienced so far. It is most definitely nothing to do with choice. Belief is NOT a matter of choice. We are either convinced that something is true or we are not.

You, all of us, inherently are hostile to God, we despise God and rejoice each time we can push him away from ourselves, God is very unwelcome, man has always rejected God except when God has supernaturally brought us down at heel, enabling us to see what we could not see before.

God created us this way so that we could undergo the experience of seeing what we are without God and understanding God when he does reveal himself to us, each of us goes through or will go through that experience at some point.

I do not have all the answers either, I only know what I have learned here and there, the entire subject is beyond human comprehension I think.

Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.

[brunumb]

God reveals himself to us individually at a time of his choosing, one cannot find God, one cannot search for God, God reveals himself, we are fleshly, material beings and cannot discover spiritual truths, unless they are revealed to us we remain totally ignorant of them.

Yeah, right. So you didn't reason yourself out of atheism you were just one of the lucky chosen. Praise Jesus.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #162]

There is no evidence that the C12-C14 has been constant over millions of years.

It doesn't need to be. C-14 dating is only good to about 50,000 years ago, ballpark, because there isn't enough C-14 left after 10 half lives to see anything. Yet YECs still try to carbon date dinosaur bones and things like that which have no carbon left in them at all, and are far too old to use carbon dating anyway.

The rest of the comments (and the crazy Z-pinch stuff again!) are just rehashes of previously debunked creationists claims. You guys need some new talking points.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Prior to my conversion I can see that I tricked myself, I willingly and willfully chose to interpret the world in a way I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be Godless, I wanted to believe in a Star Trek like future, where we look forward to a wonderful future brought to us by science and technology, that desire was what drove my choice - it was a choice too, even if that wasn't clear to me at the time.

I really don't understand that. Why would anyone want the world to be godless?

Because we are selfish and want to do as we please.

Speak for yourself.

I actually want there to be a loving, caring God who will grant me life after death and the prospect of meeting loved ones again and living in peace and harmony. Who wouldn't?

But you don't else you'd recognize what I'm saying to you. Humans are innately hostile to God, it is how we were created. You perhaps want "a God" but on your terms, not God's, you have no interest in a complete change of how you think, you are unwilling to abandon your comfortable beliefs, the cozy physical ("fleshly" as it is sometimes termed) world. You might want a God that conforms to your desires, a God of your making.

But, unfortunately, despite what I would prefer my brain has rejected all of that based on everything it has experienced so far. It is most definitely nothing to do with choice. Belief is NOT a matter of choice. We are either convinced that something is true or we are not.

You, all of us, inherently are hostile to God, we despise God and rejoice each time we can push him away from ourselves, God is very unwelcome, man has always rejected God except when God has supernaturally brought us down at heel, enabling us to see what we could not see before.

God created us this way so that we could undergo the experience of seeing what we are without God and understanding God when he does reveal himself to us, each of us goes through or will go through that experience at some point.

I do not have all the answers either, I only know what I have learned here and there, the entire subject is beyond human comprehension I think.

Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.

This conversation can serve no purpose.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not a solipsist what more do you want from me?

You say you're not, but the arguments you put forth indicate otherwise. For example, you argue that science must first make the basic assumption that things truly are as they appear rather than being some sort of illusion from a god, who created it one way but made it seem as if it came about completely differently, and did so in ways that we cannot detect.

No, you are the one who used the term "illusion" because that fact that you might get something wrong must always be someone else's fault.

My response is, that's the case with everything. We all make the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it, in everything we do.

Do not assume that I assume as you do. Again, self evident truths are not assumptions.

So regardless of what label we slap on that, I still wonder.....what exactly is your point? Science, like every other human endeavor, makes the fundamental assumption that reality exists, and exists as we perceive it. Therefore...........?

That the world exists is not something we've disagreed on Jose. That it is billions of years old however is true only if we assume uniformitarianism, this is not solipsism, I regard it as self evident that the world exists, I do not assume it exists.

Therefore if we do not assume uniformitarianism we can create a totally rational argument that the earth is a few thousand years old and was created in six days, this is not new, scholars, theologians, philosophers and most scientists during the scientific revolution all understood this, it has never been regarded as remarkable at all.

I guess this is just what denialism forces people to do....talk themselves in circles with no consideration about maintaining consistency.

You posited that perhaps the universe was really created by a god 6,000 years ago, and it only appears to be billions of years old because that same god made it seem that way.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! over and over you do this. Jose it seems that way to you, it does not seem that way to a young earth creationist.

But you apparently only want that to apply to the age of the universe (or earth). Why?

Now what are you talking about?

You're not making the slightest bit of sense. If you have an actual position that you're advocating here, I suggest you state it clearly. If there is an actual point behind you bringing up the possibility that perhaps the gods have manipulated things to make them appear ancient when they're really young, I suggest you state it clearly.

My position is precisely what I said in this post to which you eagerly and vociferously responded.

namely:

In other words the 6 day creation does not conflict with any observations, it conflicts only with the assumption of uniformitarianism.

I think that is quite clear actually, perhaps you should pay attention more.

So is it your position that everything was different in the past? Or that only some things were different?

My position is that we assume a great deal in science. Cosmology assumes uniformitarianism, the laws of physics are the same everywhere and were the same a billion years ago as they appear to be now, pure assumption. Consistent models have been constructed where (what we consider to be) laws varied over time, changing in accordance with yet deeper laws of change. These are legitimate models but cannot be tested because their outcomes are the same as a universe with unchanging laws, assume either way, you get the same result...

This is what many science devotees (by which I mean those who believe there's a conflict between science and religion and so "choose" science) miss, they make the huge epistemological error of confusing science with truth, that the "scientific way" is the one true way. Its completely wrong, science is one way of interpreting the world we observe, there are other ways, like for example the universe being created six thousand years ago yet looking to some (to those who regard uniformitarianism as undoubtedly true) as if it were billions of years old.

I think there's been an unhealthy misrepresentation of science over the past few decades, it has been placed on a pedestal as the ultimate way, the true way, to understand the universe, that any other way is for fools, religion is for fools, God is for fools, we know, we know, they don't they are fools.

This arrogance (and I see it in people like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss and Peter Atkins) is not present in science from say a hundred years ago, this "know all" self assured superiority was not there.

I'd suggest anyone interested in this watch this debate between Dawkins and Lennox, it's a truly fascinating way to see how there are different ways to look at things: