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 #181

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:42 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:16 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:50 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:45 pm

Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.
This conversation can serve no purpose.
Yes. I suppose when you can't defend your position retreat is probably the best option.
Well, when one as encouraged to, "Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations." It is true that any further conversation can serve no purpose because this can't be demonstrated.


Tcg
You seem to believe that "demonstrate" is an absolute, objective activity but it isn't and this is where so many here err.

All we can do is show each other material artifacts, we must each then interpret and draw conclusions from those, if we use different lines of reasoning, different assumptions then we'll reach different conclusions.

It is not possible to demonstrate a truth when the recipient evaluates it in such a way that they reach a different conclusion about its meaning. Consider the wave particle duality, I can setup a lab experiment to prove that light is actually waves in a field, but you can setup another to prove that it is in fact particles, not waves at all.

For example it is quite clear to me that the universe was created, is the result of profound intelligence. That it is rationally intelligible at all is evidence alone of this. But you will not see it that way, you have a worldview that chooses to interpret the presence of all this in a different way. You chose that worldview as I have chosen mine, but they are choices, made for subjective reasons.

The difference between us is not one of science or facts or reasoning, it is the base assumptions from which we reason.

The assumption that a rationally intelligible system just happened to come along out of the blue is one assumption, that a rationally intelligible system is itself evidence of an intelligent source is another entirely reasonable one; frankly I have never seen the intellectual merits of the former view nor do I see any value in it. I'd be a bit embarrassed even to espouse it as so many do here, it really isn't much of a view at all.

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 #182

Post by JoeyKnothead »

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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #183

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

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.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #184

Post by Clownboat »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:51 am
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:42 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:16 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:50 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:45 pm

Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.
This conversation can serve no purpose.
Yes. I suppose when you can't defend your position retreat is probably the best option.
Well, when one as encouraged to, "Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations." It is true that any further conversation can serve no purpose because this can't be demonstrated.


Tcg
You seem to believe that "demonstrate" is an absolute, objective activity but it isn't and this is where so many here err.

All we can do is show each other material artifacts, we must each then interpret and draw conclusions from those, if we use different lines of reasoning, different assumptions then we'll reach different conclusions.

It is not possible to demonstrate a truth when the recipient evaluates it in such a way that they reach a different conclusion about its meaning.

For example it is quite clear to me that the universe was created, is the result of profound intelligence. That it is rationally intelligible at all is evidence alone of this. But you will not see it that way, you have a worldview that chooses to interpret the presence of all this in a different way. You chose that worldview as I have chosen mine, but they are choices, made for subjective reasons.

The difference between us is not one of science or facts or reasoning, it is the base assumptions from which we reason.
What is clear is that you believe in the Bible God first and foremost not some profound intelligence. You're just being sneaky trying to allude to some obscure thing out there when in reality what you have chosen to believe in was provided to you. Your view of the universe follows from a very specific religion with a very specific god.

If we are to be honest, the universe cannot be shown to be created or not created, we just don't (can't?) know. Not being created doesn't apply to with your starting position though, so you are stuck with being forced to view the universe in the light of having been created, by Yahweh no less.

One thing is for sure, the universe does not point to any of the available god concepts specifically, yet billions pretend it does for their preferred god concept. Quite baffeling IMO.
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #185

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:53 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:51 am
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:42 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:16 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:50 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:45 pm

Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.
This conversation can serve no purpose.
Yes. I suppose when you can't defend your position retreat is probably the best option.
Well, when one as encouraged to, "Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations." It is true that any further conversation can serve no purpose because this can't be demonstrated.


Tcg
You seem to believe that "demonstrate" is an absolute, objective activity but it isn't and this is where so many here err.

All we can do is show each other material artifacts, we must each then interpret and draw conclusions from those, if we use different lines of reasoning, different assumptions then we'll reach different conclusions.

It is not possible to demonstrate a truth when the recipient evaluates it in such a way that they reach a different conclusion about its meaning.

For example it is quite clear to me that the universe was created, is the result of profound intelligence. That it is rationally intelligible at all is evidence alone of this. But you will not see it that way, you have a worldview that chooses to interpret the presence of all this in a different way. You chose that worldview as I have chosen mine, but they are choices, made for subjective reasons.

The difference between us is not one of science or facts or reasoning, it is the base assumptions from which we reason.
What is clear is that you believe in the Bible God first and foremost not some profound intelligence. You're just being sneaky trying to allude to some obscure thing out there when in reality what you have chosen to believe in was provided to you. Your view of the universe follows from a very specific religion with a very specific god.

If we are to be honest, the universe cannot be shown to be created or not created, we just don't (can't?) know. Not being created doesn't apply to with your starting position though, so you are stuck with being forced to view the universe in the light of having been created, by Yahweh no less.

One thing is for sure, the universe does not point to any of the available god concepts specifically, yet billions pretend it does for their preferred god concept. Quite baffeling IMO.
I'm sorry, are you disagreeing with something I actually wrote or is this just an opinion piece? My motives - whatever they might be - are irrelevant and to attack them is to descend into ad-hominem, it is not acceptable discourse to accuse me of "being sneaky".

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #186

Post by Clownboat »

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.
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #187

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

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.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #188

Post by Clownboat »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:56 am
Clownboat wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:53 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:51 am
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:42 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:16 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:50 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:45 pm

Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.
This conversation can serve no purpose.
Yes. I suppose when you can't defend your position retreat is probably the best option.
Well, when one as encouraged to, "Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations." It is true that any further conversation can serve no purpose because this can't be demonstrated.


Tcg
You seem to believe that "demonstrate" is an absolute, objective activity but it isn't and this is where so many here err.

All we can do is show each other material artifacts, we must each then interpret and draw conclusions from those, if we use different lines of reasoning, different assumptions then we'll reach different conclusions.

It is not possible to demonstrate a truth when the recipient evaluates it in such a way that they reach a different conclusion about its meaning.

For example it is quite clear to me that the universe was created, is the result of profound intelligence. That it is rationally intelligible at all is evidence alone of this. But you will not see it that way, you have a worldview that chooses to interpret the presence of all this in a different way. You chose that worldview as I have chosen mine, but they are choices, made for subjective reasons.

The difference between us is not one of science or facts or reasoning, it is the base assumptions from which we reason.
What is clear is that you believe in the Bible God first and foremost not some profound intelligence. You're just being sneaky trying to allude to some obscure thing out there when in reality what you have chosen to believe in was provided to you. Your view of the universe follows from a very specific religion with a very specific god.

If we are to be honest, the universe cannot be shown to be created or not created, we just don't (can't?) know. Not being created doesn't apply to with your starting position though, so you are stuck with being forced to view the universe in the light of having been created, by Yahweh no less.

One thing is for sure, the universe does not point to any of the available god concepts specifically, yet billions pretend it does for their preferred god concept. Quite baffeling IMO.
I'm sorry, are you disagreeing with something I actually wrote or is this just an opinion piece? My motives - whatever they might be - are irrelevant and to attack them is to descend into ad-hominem, it is not acceptable discourse to accuse me of "being sneaky".
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:
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: 1242 times

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #189

Post by Clownboat »

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.
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: A 6 Day Creation

Post #190

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 12:20 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:56 am
Clownboat wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 11:53 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:51 am
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 10:42 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 9:16 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 7:50 pm
brunumb wrote: Wed Mar 16, 2022 5:45 pm

Please do not attempt to tell me how I feel or how I think. You may have your own perverse image of humanity which helps you to explain disbelief in God, but don't project that onto the rest of us. It might help you rationalise why you are one of the chosen and the rest of us remain unbelievers, but to me it's just a load of cobblers. Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations. Without that your explanation is worthless.
This conversation can serve no purpose.
Yes. I suppose when you can't defend your position retreat is probably the best option.
Well, when one as encouraged to, "Demonstrate that your God is real and that you truly understand his thoughts and motivations." It is true that any further conversation can serve no purpose because this can't be demonstrated.


Tcg
You seem to believe that "demonstrate" is an absolute, objective activity but it isn't and this is where so many here err.

All we can do is show each other material artifacts, we must each then interpret and draw conclusions from those, if we use different lines of reasoning, different assumptions then we'll reach different conclusions.

It is not possible to demonstrate a truth when the recipient evaluates it in such a way that they reach a different conclusion about its meaning.

For example it is quite clear to me that the universe was created, is the result of profound intelligence. That it is rationally intelligible at all is evidence alone of this. But you will not see it that way, you have a worldview that chooses to interpret the presence of all this in a different way. You chose that worldview as I have chosen mine, but they are choices, made for subjective reasons.

The difference between us is not one of science or facts or reasoning, it is the base assumptions from which we reason.
What is clear is that you believe in the Bible God first and foremost not some profound intelligence. You're just being sneaky trying to allude to some obscure thing out there when in reality what you have chosen to believe in was provided to you. Your view of the universe follows from a very specific religion with a very specific god.

If we are to be honest, the universe cannot be shown to be created or not created, we just don't (can't?) know. Not being created doesn't apply to with your starting position though, so you are stuck with being forced to view the universe in the light of having been created, by Yahweh no less.

One thing is for sure, the universe does not point to any of the available god concepts specifically, yet billions pretend it does for their preferred god concept. Quite baffeling IMO.
I'm sorry, are you disagreeing with something I actually wrote or is this just an opinion piece? My motives - whatever they might be - are irrelevant and to attack them is to descend into ad-hominem, it is not acceptable discourse to accuse me of "being sneaky".
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.

Consider:
Wikipedia wrote:Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
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.

Locked