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]

Until this very moment you continue to focus the thread on me and not on the plot content within my comments... Where is the explanation about the criteria that scientists use to classify the bones they find in a type of ape man, or normal ape, or human? Nobody writes anything about it yet... I am getting bored with so much demagoguery.

[Jose Fly]

As I said in another post, we are educated about what scientists say.

No you're not. You're told what scientists say by an organization that has a long and sordid history of misrepresenting what scientists say.

If you were truly interested in "what scientists say", you would get that info first hand.

But again I have to wonder....why do you care "what scientists say"? When scientists say evolution is a fact, you reject that out of hand, right?

Ask yourself why evolutionists keep trying to disqualify believers, as if we don't know what we're talking about.

Because we can tell by the nature of the questions you ask, the replies you post, and objections you raise that you don't know much of anything about the science you're trying to debate. For example, all your questions about humans/apes in the Americas showed you don't know about the concept of biogeography.

And to be clear, it's totally fine to be ignorant of things like that...most people are. The problem arises when those folks try and act like they know the subject well enough to critique it. Humility can be a virtue.

[Eloi]

This forum has lost a lot of quality. I will probably go soon to other forums to talk to other types of people and in other terms. Pfff.

[Jose Fly]

A phrase I see thrown around here rather a lot, directed at those who regard the bible as inspired, is "attacking science" or the equally emotive "denying science".

Barbarian regards the Bible as inspired, yet no one has accused him of attacking science. Huh.....

[Sherlock Holmes]

You admit to having no idea yet have no problem attacking the science involved.

A phrase I see thrown around here rather a lot, directed at those who regard the bible as inspired, is "attacking science" or the equally emotive "denying science". But disagreeing with some person's interpretation of science is not to attack science but to attack the interpretation or the underlying assumptions.

That's not what's happening in this conversation, to "those who regard the Bible as inspired" or anyone else. This is the comment being called an attack on science:

Nor do I have the slightest idea what criteria will be followed by those in charge to decide how to call the owner of a piece of skull or other bone that is buried somewhere... Aren't they calling "species" what it is only a normal race of human beings, like the ones that exist today? All races are nothing more than genetic variations of the same species. Dividing ancient humans into species is like making believe that human races differ in evolutionary status.

That's not a disagreement with any particular "interpretation" because the commenter hasn't "the slightest idea" what that interpretation is.

Those remarks are hardly an "attack", questioning something is not to "attack" it. The word comes up far to much here in my opinion, it is emotive. Propositions, arguments are either sound or not, the facts underpinning them are either disputed or not, the assumptions too, accepted or not.

I would never accuse anyone here of "attacking God" or "attacking religion" just because you don't share my opinions or beliefs about it.

[Jose Fly]

Where is the explanation about the criteria that scientists use to classify the bones they find in a type of ape man, or normal ape, or human?

Why do you care? You've already made it clear that if their conclusions conflict with your religious beliefs you will reject them out of hand. So why does it matter to you how they reached those conclusions? You'll reject them regardless, correct?

[Sherlock Holmes]

A phrase I see thrown around here rather a lot, directed at those who regard the bible as inspired, is "attacking science" or the equally emotive "denying science".

Barbarian regards the Bible as inspired, yet no one has accused him of attacking science. Huh.....

Which is my point, we should not be accusing one another of emotive actions like "attacking science" it has no place in civilized polite discourse - IMHO. The very phrase carries the presumption of error, "attacking science" implies a groundless denial of obvious truth, that's misleading though. Science is not truth, it is a man made model of reality and is based on a vast array of assumptions and interpretation of data. Questioning any reasoned conclusion on the basis that it's assumptions are suspect or subjective is not to be discouraged and certainly not to be misrepresented as intellectual inferiority.

Even if an argument did attack science so what? can we not simply focus on the arguments, the reasoning, the interpretation.

[Jose Fly]

This forum has lost a lot of quality. I will probably go soon to other forums to talk to other types of people and in other terms. Pfff.

Seen that a million times from creationists.....

Creationist: There are no transitional fossils!

Science advocate: Shows multiple examples of transitional fossils

Creationist: Ignores them

Creationist goes to different forum: There are no transitional fossils!

Such is the nature of denialism.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #471]

Until this very moment you continue to focus the thread on me and not on the plot content within my comments... Where is the explanation about the criteria that scientists use to classify the bones they find in a type of ape man, or normal ape, or human? Nobody writes anything about it yet... I am getting bored with so much demagoguery.

Who are you responding to (ie. who is "you" in the quote above)? Many links have been provided, along with a lot of comments, on exactly what you are implying above that "nobody writes anything about it yet." It's there, multiple times ... all you have to do is read the responses and look at the supporting links. In fact, the entire scientific discipline called Paleontology, as well as Archeological Anthropology, describe the criteria and methodoligies used to classify bones and fossils. It is all very easy information to find these days without having to leave your computer.

[Eloi]

You can find refutation to all of that in another thousand websites, easy to find.
You don't want to read them?
Normal ... then do not ask me to do it.