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.

[Jose Fly]

So the question to you is, when the conclusions of science conflict with your religious beliefs, how do you resolve the conflict?

I recognized long ago that science never does conflict with the truth of God or the Bible. It is interpretations of science, of evidence than can lead to a conflict.

In such cases I try to look at reasonable, alternative interpretations of scientific data or sometimes at alternative interpretations of scripture, often, with some time and honest study the conflict can be seen to be only apparent and I often learn something from that experience.

I appreciate your openness. So your view is that the Bible can never be wrong, although interpretations of it can be.

Apologies if you've already explained but I want to be clear....do you believe the Bible describes a 6 day period of creation for the universe, the earth, and all of its first life forms?

[Jose Fly]

Again, the point about 6 day creation being a religious belief stemming from a religious text, while evolution and an ancient earth are scientific conclusions stemming from scientific data and analyses, is about the nature of the debate and why they never seem to go anywhere.

I know the origins of each hypothesis, what of them?

Um.....I just explained it.....for the second time. For the third time: It's about the nature of the debate and why it never goes anywhere.

As for "scientific conclusions stemming from scientific data and analyses" you made no mention of interpretation, yet it is an interpretation of data and there are different ways to interpret the data.

Do you believe all interpretations are equally valid?

The view that the debate "never seems to go anywhere" is of course subjective, I don't see it that way at all.

Why is that?

[Sherlock Holmes]

So the question to you is, when the conclusions of science conflict with your religious beliefs, how do you resolve the conflict?

I recognized long ago that science never does conflict with the truth of God or the Bible. It is interpretations of science, of evidence than can lead to a conflict.

In such cases I try to look at reasonable, alternative interpretations of scientific data or sometimes at alternative interpretations of scripture, often, with some time and honest study the conflict can be seen to be only apparent and I often learn something from that experience.

I appreciate your openness. So your view is that the Bible can never be wrong, although interpretations of it can be.

Apologies if you've already explained but I want to be clear....do you believe the Bible describes a 6 day period of creation for the universe, the earth, and all of its first life forms?

I don't know, I really don't know, there are a great many factors involved. As you know there are "young earth" and "old earth" views and these can each be argued reasonably well from scripture, all depends on how one interprets things.

I did for years favor old earth creation as the chronology conflicted less with my understanding of science back then. But as I've since learned there really is no way to scientifically prove the earth is ancient, this can only be done if we pick a particular set of initial assumptions, different assumptions leads to different ages so I don't pretend to myself that I "know" the universe is billions of years old. It does seem to be but we must be conscious of the fact that it only looks this way IF we assume certain things.

My experience of conversion and becoming a Christian is one of recognizing that I know nothing really, we choose our assumptions and build on them. This is why I truly try to be open minded, I take nothing for granted anymore, my self assuredness with science has long gone.

It took a lot of effort to reach that point but I recognized that my God many years ago WAS science, WAS my worldview, everything had to fit into MY worldview, letting that go was hard for me, very hard indeed, but I see now that it actually matters not, it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #457]

It seems you hadn't noticed, but I'm no longer suspended.

It says "under suspension" below your name.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Again, the point about 6 day creation being a religious belief stemming from a religious text, while evolution and an ancient earth are scientific conclusions stemming from scientific data and analyses, is about the nature of the debate and why they never seem to go anywhere.

I know the origins of each hypothesis, what of them?

Um.....I just explained it.....for the second time. For the third time: It's about the nature of the debate and why it never goes anywhere.

It's the genetic fallacy though, yes one stems from an interpretation of scripture and one from an interpretation of nature, but this cannot tell us which is correct. Really, mentioning these origins is pointless, has absolutely no bearing on the arguments, that's what a genetic fallacy is.

The claim that the origins has any bearing whatsoever on the arguments themselves is untrue, it is in fact totally irrelevant.

Examples:

Volkswagon Beetles are poor cars because they were created by Nazis.

and

Kekule has an interesting theory about the ring structure of Benzene, but it cannot be true because he got the idea from a dream.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #457]

It seems you hadn't noticed, but I'm no longer suspended.

It says "under suspension" below your name.

Yes, it does, but I'm no longer suspended because I can freely participate in discussions.

[Jose Fly]

Apologies if you've already explained but I want to be clear....do you believe the Bible describes a 6 day period of creation for the universe, the earth, and all of its first life forms?

I don't know, I really don't know, there are a great many factors involved. As you know there are "young earth" and "old earth" views and these can each be argued reasonably well from scripture, all depends on how one interprets things.

I've always felt that the Bible pretty clearly describes a 6 day creation period. What specifically in it do you see as possibly indicating something else?

I did for years favor old earth creation as the chronology conflicted less with my understanding of science back then. But as I've since learned there really is no way to scientifically prove the earth is ancient, this can only be done if we pick a particular set of initial assumptions, different assumptions leads to different ages so I don't pretend to myself that I "know" the universe is billions of years old. It does seem to be but we must be conscious of the fact that it only looks this way IF we assume certain things.

My experience of conversion and becoming a Christian is one of recognizing that I know nothing really, we choose our assumptions and build on them. This is why I truly try to be open minded, I take nothing for granted anymore, my self assuredness with science has long gone.

Again I see that as you being a solipsist. I mean, you just said you "know nothing", which makes me wonder why you were so reluctant to say that earlier when I asked you to name something you know.

Do you believe that, even though we cannot really know anything, we can at least be reasonably certain of things?

It took a lot of effort to reach that point but I recognized that my God many years ago WAS science, WAS my worldview, everything had to fit into MY worldview, letting that go was hard for me, very hard indeed, but I see now that it actually matters not, it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

How specifically was science your god?

[Jose Fly]

It's the genetic fallacy though

Good grief man....no it's not. I'm not talking about the truth of either, (for the fourth time) it's about the nature of the debate.

Why are you struggling to grasp that?

yes one stems from an interpretation of scripture and one from an interpretation of nature, but this cannot tell us which is correct. Really, mentioning these origins is pointless, has absolutely no bearing on the arguments, that's what a genetic fallacy is.

I'm honestly stumped about why this is so difficult for you to understand.

The claim that the origins has any bearing whatsoever on the arguments themselves is untrue, it is in fact totally irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. If one side takes the view that whenever science and their interpretation of the Bible conflict, the Bible is always right no matter what, there really isn't any point in showing them more science, is there? Spending hours and hours explaining science to them won't accomplish anything, will it?

That's the fundamental disconnect I've been speaking to.

Examples:

Volkswagon Beetles are poor cars because they were created by Nazis.

and

Kekule has an interesting theory about the ring structure of Benzene, but it cannot be true because he got the idea from a dream.

To repeat yet again....my point has nothing to do with the truth of either proposition.

Can you at least understand that?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Apologies if you've already explained but I want to be clear....do you believe the Bible describes a 6 day period of creation for the universe, the earth, and all of its first life forms?

I don't know, I really don't know, there are a great many factors involved. As you know there are "young earth" and "old earth" views and these can each be argued reasonably well from scripture, all depends on how one interprets things.

I've always felt that the Bible pretty clearly describes a 6 day creation period. What specifically in it do you see as possibly indicating something else?

There are indications in the Hebrew that the activity described in as the six day creation is a recreation of a world once inhabited by angelic beings who rebelled and caused great physical destruction. The earth may have existed for billions of years until this destruction and God's recreation. You can look for more detail on this interpretation online, I won't dwell on it here.

I did for years favor old earth creation as the chronology conflicted less with my understanding of science back then. But as I've since learned there really is no way to scientifically prove the earth is ancient, this can only be done if we pick a particular set of initial assumptions, different assumptions leads to different ages so I don't pretend to myself that I "know" the universe is billions of years old. It does seem to be but we must be conscious of the fact that it only looks this way IF we assume certain things.

My experience of conversion and becoming a Christian is one of recognizing that I know nothing really, we choose our assumptions and build on them. This is why I truly try to be open minded, I take nothing for granted anymore, my self assuredness with science has long gone.

Again I see that as you being a solipsist. I mean, you just said you "know nothing", which makes me wonder why you were so reluctant to say that earlier when I asked you to name something you know.

I'm not a solipsist, if you think I've implied that, you are incorrect. I will say again, solipsism is a rational position to take, I do not take that position myself but one can and be completely self consistent. Understanding that solipsism is a rational position is not the same as being a solipsist. I understand some men are gay and I accept that as their right to do so, I am not myself but I respect their right and would defend their right.

Do you believe that, even though we cannot really know anything, we can at least be reasonably certain of things?

I don't know, I don't know what "reasonably certain" even means, how it differs from "uncertain". This is epistemology and why I suggested recently a thread be set aside for it.

It took a lot of effort to reach that point but I recognized that my God many years ago WAS science, WAS my worldview, everything had to fit into MY worldview, letting that go was hard for me, very hard indeed, but I see now that it actually matters not, it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

How specifically was science your god?

It was my materialist worldview that mattered to me, other worldviews did not, mine was the right one, others were wrong, my science based worldview was superior, correct. Religious, theological views were primitive, inferior - I trusted my own reasoning about nature to build my understanding of nature. I have since learned that we must trust God for our understanding, we must recognize that true, valuable knowledge is spiritual knowledge and spiritual knowledge is revealed never discovered. Without God we are like blind bats flying around, unaware of a deeper more profound reality.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #498]

We cannot discuss this meaningfully Jose, I am of the opinion you have committed the genetic fallacy by drawing attention to the origins of the 6 Day Creation hypothesis as being in some way relevant as to its truth. You clearly disagree and so I see no way forward on this specific issue. There is no "disconnect" we disagree, its as simple as that.