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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #270]

Show us any methodology to arrive at any date, say, over a billion years int the universe, and I can proceed to show you what is wrong.

This should be good. Let's see your best shot at shooting down just two:

1) Radiometric dating, specifically all of the following isotope combinations which can be used for things more then 1 billion years old and give consistent results:

206-Pb - 207 Pb
204-Pb/206-Pb
207-Pb/206-Pb
I-Xe
Mn-Cr
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Pb-Pb
U-Pb
232-TH-208Pb
Hf-W
Ar-Ar
K-Ar
Re-Os
U-Th/He

2) Magnetostratigraphy

[dad1]

[Replying to dad1 in post #270]

Show us any methodology to arrive at any date, say, over a billion years int the universe, and I can proceed to show you what is wrong.

This should be good. Let's see your best shot at shooting down just two:

1) Radiometric dating, specifically all of the following isotope combinations which can be used for things more then 1 billion years old and give consistent results:

206-Pb - 207 Pb
204-Pb/206-Pb
207-Pb/206-Pb
I-Xe
Mn-Cr
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Pb-Pb
U-Pb
232-TH-208Pb
Hf-W
Ar-Ar
K-Ar
Re-Os
U-Th/He

Let's look at that then. You have provides a list of isotopes that show a sequence of decay in this present day. The thing is, you need to apply that to many millions of years ago (in imaginary so called science time). Just because forces now exist that result in radioactivity and decay, does not mean this was also the case in the far past. Basically you are looking at what goes on today and using belief and belief alone to assume that this is how it always was.

You do realize that forces exist that work to cause this radioactivity? So, no one is asking how it works now, we know that. If all you want to do is date things a few thousand years (when we know things were the same) that is fine. It works! Beyond that, you are in pure belief territory. How do you know the same forces on earth existed as we know them today?? Unless you prove that they were the same then you have no leg to stand on. Your suppositions will have to remain religious musings.

Were you there a billion years ago to see that the elements did not already exist? Why would we assume that all of them had to come to exist BY the forces working today?? That is your one trick pony.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to dad1 in post #270]

Show us any methodology to arrive at any date, say, over a billion years int the universe, and I can proceed to show you what is wrong.

This should be good. Let's see your best shot at shooting down just two:

1) Radiometric dating, specifically all of the following isotope combinations which can be used for things more then 1 billion years old and give consistent results:

206-Pb - 207 Pb
204-Pb/206-Pb
207-Pb/206-Pb
I-Xe
Mn-Cr
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Pb-Pb
U-Pb
232-TH-208Pb
Hf-W
Ar-Ar
K-Ar
Re-Os
U-Th/He

Let's look at that then. You have provides a list of isotopes that show a sequence of decay in this present day. The thing is, you need to apply that to many millions of years ago (in imaginary so called science time). Just because forces now exist that result in radioactivity and decay, does not mean this was also the case in the far past. Basically you are looking at what goes on today and using belief and belief alone to assume that this is how it always was.

You do realize that forces exist that work to cause this radioactivity? So, no one is asking how it works now, we know that. If all you want to do is date things a few thousand years (when we know things were the same) that is fine. It works! Beyond that, you are in pure belief territory. How do you know the same forces on earth existed as we know them today?? Unless you prove that they were the same then you have no leg to stand on. Your suppositions will have to remain religious musings.

Were you there a billion years ago to see that the elements did not already exist? Why would we assume that all of them had to come to exist BY the forces working today?? That is your one trick pony.

I'm always struck how uniformitarianism, continuous processes are assumed by materialists ignoring the fact that there must have been a discontinuity at some point in the past when everything started to exist.

Imagine if you will, nothing existing and then stuff starting to exist gradually, smoothly, continuously! If we start with nothing there's no basis for it to ever become anything other than nothing.

If we start with nothing then as soon as anything, even the tiniest particle of matter, begins to exist, that cannot be a continuous "process" it is a dramatic step function.

[JoeyKnothead]

The evidence raised was that most people on the planet have always experienced things that they attributed to spirits.

That is a claim, and an unsupported one at that. Claims are not evidence.

Oh really? so what about claims that something is evidence?

Then we ask to see what that something is, and go from there.

Are you new to debate?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #266]

It has been observed that there is a certain amount of Uranium to a certain amount of Lead, thorium, or Lead 234. That is what science has observed. The interpretation of those observations is what separates atheistic cosmology from theistic cosmology. Or we even could call it materialistic cosmology verse theistic cosmology.

Lead 234? If you know of any source for 234-Pb please let me know so I can collect my Nobel Prize.

It is really not known for sure what causes aging. Many theorize that UV light is the major cause of aging. So how can you say for sure that it is impossible that men cannot live to be much much older? I am actually of the belief that men will figure out the secret to long life. I do not believe that men's decreased life span is a result of God's supernatural hand but atmospheric changes on the Earth. Because Revelation says that men will long to die but they cannot. But I would not die on that hill at all. It could as just as well be an act of God.

UV light is the major cause of aging? It can certainly increase rates of skin cancer, but since it can't penetrate much below the top skin layers it can't directly contribute to other types of cancer within the body (eg. breast cancer, prostate cancer). It may be that we evolve to longer life spans in the future, but like all other animals our bodies just deteriorate with time and eventually stop functioning due a a combination of factors.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #271]

This should be good. Let's see your best shot at shooting down just two:

1) Radiometric dating, specifically all of the following isotope combinations which can be used for things more then 1 billion years old and give consistent results:

206-Pb - 207 Pb
204-Pb/206-Pb
207-Pb/206-Pb
I-Xe
Mn-Cr
Rb-Sr
Sm-Nd
Pb-Pb
U-Pb
232-TH-208Pb
Hf-W
Ar-Ar
K-Ar
Re-Os
U-Th/He

Many of these do have problems, like excess He in rocks with the last one. But my point was what was observed was the ratio of elements. The breaking down of the elements is an assumption. Another process has been shown to give the same results.

2) Magnetostratigraphy

Is actually evidence for recent creation.

Back in 1985 Coe, Prévot, and their scientific colleagues reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid polarity changes of the earth’s magnetic field recorded in basalt lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon. https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... ung-earth/


Evidence of second fast north-south pole flip found
https://phys.org/news/2010-09-evidence- ... -flip.html

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #275]

Lead 234? If you know of any source for 234-Pb please let me know so I can collect my Noble Prize.

No, Only if you split it with me.

Although I do not think we would want to be around it. Can you imagine how radioactive it would be if it were real?

UV light is the major cause of aging? It can certainly increase rates of skin cancer, but since it can't penetrate much below the top skin layers it can't directly contribute to other types of cancer within the body (eg. breast cancer, prostate cancer). It may be that we evolve to longer life spans in the future, but like all other animals, our bodies just deteriorate with time and eventually stop functioning due to a combination of factors.

UV light was what the article said was the main factor when I did my search. It is a combination of factors.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #273]

I'm always struck how uniformitarianism, continuous processes are assumed by materialists ignoring the fact that there must have been a discontinuity at some point in the past when everything started to exist.

Imagine if you will, nothing existing and then stuff starting to exist gradually, smoothly, continuously! If we start with nothing there's no basis for it to ever become anything other than nothing.

But if the first atoms formed billions of years before our planet formed, there is no need to consider such discontinuities as far as radiometric dating is concerned. By the time Earth formed, stars had been forming elements all over the universe for billions of years. We can study large numbers of stars over a wide range of past time and see that the spectra of the various elements (and molecules in gas clouds between the star and Earth) are the same as they are on Earth as far as the energy level structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy

Nothing has indicated that atoms and molecules from billions of years ago may be different in some way from today as far as their structure and behavior (chemically, radiatively). So what justification is there to assume that they were, or could have been, different? That is far more speculative than uniformitarianism.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The evidence raised was that most people on the planet have always experienced things that they attributed to spirits.

That is a claim, and an unsupported one at that. Claims are not evidence.

Oh really? so what about claims that something is evidence?

Then we ask to see what that something is, and go from there.

Are you new to debate?

Oh, so there are several "Joeys"? do you all have the same name?

[JoeyKnothead]

Oh, so there are several Joeys? do you all have the same name?

Yes, all them named Joey share the same name. In this case that name is Joey, of which, all that bunch named Joey, now follow me carefully here, but everyone named Joey have that name in common with one another.

How proud are you, that you learned you something today?