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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Naw now, you're the one said them billions have some kinda proof or something.

Did I say you had some? No. So prove they don't?

I never said their claims could not be proven.

I simply challenged you to show you speak truth when you referred to the religious experiences of a billion people.

We see often those new to debate don't quite understand it's the claimant that bears the burden.

How could you prove that when you cannot even detect any about spirits?

I've made no claims regarding spirits, so bear no responsibility in this matter.

Do you propose spirits exist?

You are in NO position to say yes or no. Neither of course is physical science.

Lol

I merely challenged your claim of a billion folks having a religious experience.

Up to now, it's abundantly obvious you're in "NO position" to show you speak truth.

Question all you like, you cannot wave it all away. All you can do is plead ignorance.

I question your ability to show you speak truth regarding a billion folks having a religious experience.

Up to now I can only conclude you're so ignorant of the protocols of debate that your claim regarding that billion folks there is a better display of your own ignorance than of mine.

In debate, the claimant's expected to offer some means to confirm they speak truth.

The truth is science cannot tell us or deal with any spiritual issue whatsoever in any way shape or form.

That's a problem for you, not me.

Where's these billion folks at, that we may examine their alledged religious experience?

So when faced with the overwhelming EVIDENCE (whatever you would prefer to call it doesn't matter) of most peoples of earth in all ages claiming effects from God or the spiritual, you simply are in no position to question it.

PUTTING STUFF IN ALL CAPS DON'T MEAN DIDDLY.

Face it, you can't support your claim and are too proud to fess it.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #239]

Creation IS a spiritual issue. So what can science say about the topic here?

You're completely missing the point. The creation account in Genesis can be investigated scientifically because it describes specific physical events relating to how the universe, and planet Earth, came into existence, and in what sequence. Science can investigate this description and see if it is compatible (or not) with some or all of what we do know about how things happened. It turns out that the Genesis creation story is not compatible with modern science and so can be described as myth or allegory, or simply good fiction for when it was concocted. That is what science can (and does) say about the topic.

The point of my earlier post was that you need some justification for your creation-believing claims beyond a biblical reference or just hand-waving "it's spiritual so not within the realm of science" statements. What scientific arguments can you provide to support the Genesis creation story? If you have none, then you are in the wrong section of this forum. Complaining about science in general (as you appear to be doing) is not debating a topic intersecting science and religion (eg. the scientific merits of the Genesis 6 day creation account). Explain how the Genesis creation account is compatible with current scientific knowledge.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #240]

Science is more about sitting around and smoking a pipe and dreaming of some imaginary first life form on earth, or all of what the universe consists of sailing out of some imaginary little speck o soup etc!

That sounds more like Coachella or Woodstock. It is certainly no description of science. Do you object to all science, or just science that contradicts your religious beliefs? Do you think we should abandon all attempts to cure diseases and develop vaccines and instead just pray? What about dropping all efforts to better understand anthropogenic activity on climate, or develop fusion reactors for the power grids, or improve crop and potable water production, etc. Are all these science-based efforts a waste of time and money?

[dad1]

I never said their claims could not be proven.

I can see why you would say that. I also would say the origin claims of so called science cannot be supported.

I simply challenged you to show you speak truth when you referred to the religious experiences of a billion people.

The truth is that people all through history accepted spiritual realities and spirit beings. That shows something is at work.

We see often those new to debate don't quite understand it's the claimant that bears the burden.

So who is the one claiming stuff here? I pointed out science is not in the game on this topic. There is some power and force at work, the evidence is clear. Now what that is we could say is a matter of belief.

I've made no claims regarding spirits, so bear no responsibility in this matter.

Creation is spiritual. Do you feel you can speak about the topic?

Do you propose spirits exist?

Who are we to question extended historical evidence of billions of people experiencing things that have no physical explanation? Science cannot question it.

I merely challenged your claim of a billion folks having a religious experience.

There are what, seven billion alive today, most of whom would say there is a spiritual component and power to life that affected them? There are also, what, say 23 billion people or whatever the number is that have lived before this that would, for the most part also agree? Therefore life IS a spiritual experience that some people choose to question without reason.

Up to now, it's abundantly obvious you're in "NO position" to show you speak truth.

Show anything I said that is not true?

I question your ability to show you speak truth regarding a billion folks having a religious experience.

Most of the world now and always has accepted spirits. How could any sane person question the obvious?

Up to now I can only conclude you're so ignorant of the protocols of debate that your claim regarding that billion folks there is a better display of your own ignorance than of mine.

Look at any poll that ever existed on the matter.

Where's these billion folks at, that we may examine their alledged religious experience?

? You thought someone elected you god or judge of what most people realize to be valid??

It is not reasonable to doubt without reason.

[dad1]

That sounds more like Coachella or Woodstock. It is certainly no description of science.

Then show us the first lifeform if it is more than a pipe dream?

Do you object to all science, or just science that contradicts your religious beliefs?

No science contradicts my beliefs.

Do you think we should abandon all attempts to cure diseases and develop vaccines and instead just pray?

There is a vaccine that shows a 6 day creation is false or true??

What about dropping all efforts to better understand anthropogenic activity on climate, or develop fusion reactors for the power grids, or improve crop and potable water production, etc. Are all these science-based efforts a waste of time and money?

I am not here to pat science on the back for WOMD, or anything else. If there is actual science on the topic, why is it you have not posted it yet?

[dad1]

You're completely missing the point. The creation account in Genesis can be investigated scientifically because it describes specific physical events relating to how the universe, and planet Earth, came into existence, and in what sequence.

Whoever told you that utter nonsense? Creation does not describe physical events, but a Spirit that created all things including the physical.

Science can investigate this description and see if it is compatible (or not) with some or all of what we do know about how things happened.

False. Physical only so called science merely uses the present realities and physical to try to imagine how things basically must have created themselves, or got here purely by present processes and etc.

It turns out that the Genesis creation story is not compatible with modern science and so can be described as myth or allegory, or simply good fiction for when it was concocted. That is what science can (and does) say about the topic.

Science is inept and cannot begin to investigate anything spiritual such as creation. Science basically gropes in the dark and tries to explain all things in the universe by what is under it's nose and in it's little reach.

The point of my earlier post was that you need some justification for your creation-believing claims beyond a biblical reference or just hand-waving "it's spiritual so not within the realm of science" statements.

You need justification to doubt them or claim alternate reality.

What scientific arguments can you provide to support the Genesis creation story?

Science has zero to do with God or creation or the spirits or spiritual. No one has or needs such arguments! Asking for them shows deep ignorance.

If you have none, then you are in the wrong section of this forum.

If you cannot support your 'science' beliefs regarding the topic YOU are in the wrong forum.

Complaining about science in general (as you appear to be doing) is not debating a topic intersecting science and religion (eg. the scientific merits of the Genesis 6 day creation account).

Exposing the real limits of science is not complaining at all. Pretending it is is deceitful.

Explain how the Genesis creation account is compatible with current scientific knowledge.

It isn't. Scientific knowledge is far far far far far far far too small and limited to be able to even think about beginning to deal with creation and God and spirits. All that is left is to expose as frauds all who try. This is my quest.

[Diogenes]

How does one 'detect' spirits?

Not by science.

Agreed. That's why I asked HOW DO you detect spirits, since you can't do it with science.

So, you must have some way to detect spirits; otherwise how can you tell the difference between spirits and imagination? And since spirits cannot be detected by physical [scientific] means, how can spirits interact with the physical?

[dad1]

Agreed. That's why I asked HOW DO you detect spirits, since you can't do it with science.

Irrelevant to this topic. This is science and religion and what matters is if science can weigh in or not on the topic. If not, well, haha

So, you must have some way to detect spirits;

That is not an issue for people in the Christian faith. God says try it, and you will find out.
For the plethora of other faiths that also believe in some sort of spiritual, one thing we can say, and that is that science is not involved.

otherwise how can you tell the difference between spirits and imagination?

If you stick your finger in a live socket you would know there is power in there. No imagination involved. People that tap into God's power likewise know there is power at work. Some people seem to be under the notion that unless science could detect, observe, and measure it, then it must not exist.

And since spirits cannot be detected by physical [scientific] means, how can spirits interact with the physical?

That is not logical. The limitations of physical beings do not affect spirits. That is like asking if a deaf woman could not hear a concert, then how do we know there was music? In this instance science is the deaf woman, and the music is spirits or effects of the spiritual.

[brunumb]

So who is the one claiming stuff here? I pointed out science is not in the game on this topic. There is some power and force at work, the evidence is clear. Now what that is we could say is a matter of belief.

You are making the claim "that there is some power and force at work, the evidence is clear". Please support that claim by presenting the evidence for scrutiny.

[brunumb]

Creation is spiritual.

Creation allegedly produced the universe and all the matter and energy it contains. The product of creation is not spiritual, it is material and therefore subject to scientific investigation. The biblical explanation may involve the supernatural, but to this day the supernatural is indistinguishable from the imaginary or non-existent.