A 6 Day Creation

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

A 6 Day Creation

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 961 here:
EarthScienceguy wrote: 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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #191

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:31 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:15 pm
Clownboat wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:07 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:47 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:40 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:36 am ...they coexist or at least did so for thousands of years until fools like Dawkins et al started waffling on superciliously...
Yet again, we see Sherlock's most compelling argument is to insult any and all who disagree.
Prof. Richard Dawkins insults people all the time:
On his blog last year, Dawkins called a person named Minor Vidal a "fool" for his expression of thanks to God after surviving a deadly plane crash. (To be fair, Dawkins called "billions" of other people fools, too, in the same post.)
From here.
I'm confused. Do you not also believe that billions of Muslims and Hindu's have been fooled into their beliefs or do you consider that their beliefs are legit (I don't see how that would be possible)? Do you not consider them to be foolish at all for accepting the wrong god concepts as the one true God(s) of all Gods? I mean really, how much more foolish can it be then to worship a false god?

I believe the only difference between you and Dawkins is that you don't include your religion as foolish, yet all the others are. Just a matter of degree it seems. Hardly justifies insults on a debate forum though, but you do the Christian thing as you see fit.
The term "fool" is I admit, an insult, I use it for Dawkins because he considers it legitimate himself, so I will use it in reference to him. I know far more about what Dawkins believes than I do "all" Muslims or "all" Hindus too. I've spoken to some Muslims and some Hindus and have not met any that I'd regard as fools. People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, I'm a scientifically educated individual and my overall position tends to revolve around how science is abused, misrepresented and used to denigrate people who do not obey the Kafkaesque laws that the likes of Dawkins try to force upon us all.
"I believe the only difference between you and Dawkins is that you don't include your religion as foolish (to believe in it that is), yet all the others would be (how could it not be a foolish thing to believe in a false god after all). Just a matter of degree it seems. Hardly justifies insults on a debate forum though, but you do the Christian thing as you see fit."
laws that the likes of Dawkins try to force upon us all
I'm sorry Dawkins did this to you. He has not forced anything on me (certainly not some laws), nor anyone else besides you I would imagine.

I wont comment on the rest of what you said, besides to point out that many may view it to be a bit pompus.
I've never accused anyone of being foolish based on their religious beliefs.

Dawkins has accused millions of people, including by implication, me, of suffering from a mental illness (and he's not even a psychiatrist) as well as calling them "fools" and other epithets.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #192

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 8:39 pm
Jose Fly wrote: 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:

First I'll note that you (again) completely dodged the question.

Second, I'll reiterate what I've said before....if you think you have a superior way to investigate the past, then by all means go forth and do it.

As it currently stands, uniformitarianism is and has been the fundamental framework for all the historical sciences for over 200 years. It's why when geologists come across a layer of a specific ash type they conclude that it was produced by a volcano, in the same way we see volcanoes produce ash layers today, for example.

From what I can tell by reading your posts, you believe that a superior way to investigate the past would involve receiving a divine revelation, which then would allow a person to see things differently (e.g. in a spiritual light), at which point they would see the past as it truly is, thereby generating a more accurate picture of the past.

My response to that is.....okay, go right ahead. No one will stop you and I'm sure if you manage to actually come up with real results that you can demonstrate are superior to the current understanding, there will be plenty of folks who would be interested in seeing them.

So go forth Sherlock Holmes! Carry out your vision for a new way to investigate the past!
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #193

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote:Please show that this profound intelligence that created the universe is your preferred God, Yahweh.
If you cannot, the 'being sneaky claim' about Yahweh God as being that profound intelligence will be evidenced and therefore not an ad-hominem.

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

I'm specifically addressing your position that this profound intelligence is the Yahweh God. I find it sneaky to try to sneak in such an idea when what you are trying to put forth is just some profound intelligence. You sir, mean more than just profound intelligence as you actually mean Yahweh.

Mommy, Billy called me sneaky! :tongue:
The insulting label "sneaky" has no place in civil discourse, IMHO anyway. It is your opinion of my character rather than a comment on some argument I've presented.
I'll leave this to others to decide though, so back to the subject, you ask (for the first time too) "Please show that this profound intelligence that created the universe is your preferred God, Yahweh".

Well that rather loaded question implies several things. First I do not use the label "Yahweh" at all, it does not even exist in the source documents of our Bible. Second, what is this "preferred God"? Have I anywhere expressed some kind of "preference" for purported Gods? No.

The question carries no meaning for me, much as "Have you stopped beating your wife", please rephrase it.
You believe that the god of the Bible (one of its many names is Yahweh and you know this already, so something does seem sneaky) is the profound intelligence that created the universe. You make biblical arguments and you mean a very specific god concept when you say profound intelligence. It is subtle and sneaky trying to slyly make them out to be one in the same. I'm being descriptive here.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #194

Post by Clownboat »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:37 pm I've never accused anyone of being foolish based on their religious beliefs.
Would you find it to be a foolish thing to worship a false god?
Dawkins has accused millions of people, including by implication, me, of suffering from a mental illness (and he's not even a psychiatrist) as well as calling them "fools" and other epithets.
So your defense is that Dawkins did it...
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” - Oscar Wilde
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #195

Post by otseng »

Moderator Comment

For sake of civility, let's avoid usage of the words sneaky and fools or any such words.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #196

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #182]

I like the heart it makes for a nice touch.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #197

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:13 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 8:39 pm
Jose Fly wrote: 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:

First I'll note that you (again) completely dodged the question.

Second, I'll reiterate what I've said before....if you think you have a superior way to investigate the past, then by all means go forth and do it.

As it currently stands, uniformitarianism is and has been the fundamental framework for all the historical sciences for over 200 years. It's why when geologists come across a layer of a specific ash type they conclude that it was produced by a volcano, in the same way we see volcanoes produce ash layers today, for example.

From what I can tell by reading your posts, you believe that a superior way to investigate the past would involve receiving a divine revelation, which then would allow a person to see things differently (e.g. in a spiritual light), at which point they would see the past as it truly is, thereby generating a more accurate picture of the past.

My response to that is.....okay, go right ahead. No one will stop you and I'm sure if you manage to actually come up with real results that you can demonstrate are superior to the current understanding, there will be plenty of folks who would be interested in seeing them.

So go forth Sherlock Holmes! Carry out your vision for a new way to investigate the past!
That's rather a lot of words to say that yes you agree with me - uniformitarianism is nothing more than an assumption.

Thanks, took a while but you got there in the end! sorry if this fact is distasteful but it isn't anything to do with me, assume or not as you wish.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #198

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 1:26 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:37 pm I've never accused anyone of being foolish based on their religious beliefs.
Would you find it to be a foolish thing to worship a false god?
Dawkins has accused millions of people, including by implication, me, of suffering from a mental illness (and he's not even a psychiatrist) as well as calling them "fools" and other epithets.
So your defense is that Dawkins did it...
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” - Oscar Wilde
Well I'll take moderator advice - I'll simply avoid it, period.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #199

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 2:00 pm That's rather a lot of words to say that yes you agree with me - uniformitarianism is nothing more than an assumption.
I've not said otherwise.

Uniformitarianism is an assumption. Yes, we assume that in the past the earth was spherical and not flat, gravity existed, erosion happened, plate tectonics happened, volcanoes erupted, the earth orbited the sun......

Apparently you see those as completely unwarranted and inaccurate assumptions and believe there's a superior way to investigate the past. Again....then put that into practice. Otherwise all you're doing is grousing about a paradigm that's been in use for over 200 years.

Shrug
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #200

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:47 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:40 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:36 am ...they coexist or at least did so for thousands of years until fools like Dawkins et al started waffling on superciliously...
Yet again, we see Sherlock's most compelling argument is to insult any and all who disagree.
Prof. Richard Dawkins insults people all the time:
Of course.

Any excuse to insult others pleases your God.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Locked