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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #110]

So a global flood that lasted a year....the most tumultuous and extreme flooding event in the earth's history.....somehow managed to produce pure, finely-sorted layers of microfossils? All that churning and tectonic upheaval was simultaneous with the calm and consistent conditions necessary to produce these deposits?

How would such a high purity of chalk be produced over millions of years? That is a problem with your deep time theory.
How would live animals be trapped in the chalk if it took millions of years to accumulate? This is another problem with your deep time theory.

Having microorganisms next to petroleum deposits is exactly what creation cosmology would predict. Major changes in the topography would also be expected because of isostatic rebound after the flood.

Do you have anything more specific than they use deep time to find oil?

Biological proofs are not good proofs especially over time because changes in the environment change the production rate and other biological processes.

Things like purity of the chalk are better because they do not rely on biological processes. But purity can determine time because impurities will increase over time. This is why it is impossible for the White Dover cliffs to be produced over millions of years.

Thanks for playing try again.

[Jose Fly]

How would such a high purity of chalk be produced over millions of years? That is a problem with your deep time theory.
How would live animals be trapped in the chalk if it took millions of years to accumulate? This is another problem with your deep time theory.

If you're genuinely interested, I suggest you go find and read some scientific material on the subject.

Having microorganisms next to petroleum deposits is exactly what creation cosmology would predict. Major changes in the topography would also be expected because of isostatic rebound after the flood.

Then go to the oil companies and demonstrate the superiority of YEC in finding fossil fuel deposits. Empty rhetoric is meaningless.

Do you have anything more specific than they use deep time to find oil?

Read the material I linked to earlier.

Biological proofs are not good proofs especially over time because changes in the environment change the production rate and other biological processes.

Things like purity of the chalk are better because they do not rely on biological processes. But purity can determine time because impurities will increase over time. This is why it is impossible for the White Dover cliffs to be produced over millions of years.

Thanks for playing try again.

More empty rhetoric. You haven't changed a bit 6da.....er....I mean earthscienceguy.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Useful result? we have a planet swamped in the ravages of an unfolding fossil fuel driven self destruction and you regard that as useful? seriously?

Slavery and Eugenics were useful too once Jose.

Oh for the love of.......really? That's the best retort you could muster? Are you really making the bizarre argument that fossil fuels are bad, therefore the models they use to find them are wrong?

And you said logic was your specialty!

I'm sure that are plenty who'd take that seriously, many physicist and mathematicians for example, people who understand actual real science not the softer sciences that you are attracted to.

Unless you believe that universe has always existed then of course there must have been a time when gravity did not exist, yes?

Nice try......well....not really.

Seriously though, 30 years of debating science and this is the best you can do? If ever anyone were looking for an indication of how empty creationism is.......

I simply do not share your definition of utility, the very thing you cited as useful could be something that destroys us all, that's true isn't it?

For more than a century, burning fossil fuels has generated most of the energy required to propel our cars, power our businesses, and keep the lights on in our homes. Even today, oil, coal, and gas provide for about 80 percent of our energy needs.

And we’re paying the price. Using fossil fuels for energy has exacted an enormous toll on humanity and the environment—from air and water pollution to global warming.

Well? tell me why do you refer to that activity as "useful"? because if it isn't useful (and it isn't) then your reason for adopting uniformitarianism evaporates.

So I was correct....you really do think that since fossil fuels are bad, the models they use to find them are therefore wrong.

I'm not sure what to say to that, other than that I'll just let it speak for itself.

I'll let you in in a secret Jose, we all believe in God, even you. In the non-Christian case you are the God, people believe in, are devoted to and pursue the interests of, worship their God - themselves; there I told you a fundamental truth do with what you will.

We are our own idol and until that idol is smashed and thrown aside we will continue to worship the idol, only with God's help can we do that.

As I said before, I've zero interest in debates about gods.

How can you distinguish between an earth that is truly billions of years old and one that has been created to look exactly as if it was billions of years old? having all the characteristics and traits that you expect to find in a world that's billions of years old?

It is very obvious that one cannot, we can only assume one or the other, also please note I have not argued for young earth creationism either, I've only been pointing out to you that the uniformitarian view is PURE assumption.

So I have said nothing untrue, by all means choose uniformitarianism but do not try to claim that it is somehow "proven" because it looks convincingly old, what if it was made to look convincingly old?

Admit it, there's no way to tell, science cannot help us here because it could have been designed to look exactly as the scientist expects it to look.

[Jose Fly]

Useful result? we have a planet swamped in the ravages of an unfolding fossil fuel driven self destruction and you regard that as useful? seriously?

Slavery and Eugenics were useful too once Jose.

Oh for the love of.......really? That's the best retort you could muster? Are you really making the bizarre argument that fossil fuels are bad, therefore the models they use to find them are wrong?

And you said logic was your specialty!

I'm sure that are plenty who'd take that seriously, many physicist and mathematicians for example, people who understand actual real science not the softer sciences that you are attracted to.

Unless you believe that universe has always existed then of course there must have been a time when gravity did not exist, yes?

Nice try......well....not really.

Seriously though, 30 years of debating science and this is the best you can do? If ever anyone were looking for an indication of how empty creationism is.......

I simply do not share your definition of utility, the very thing you cited as useful could be something that destroys us all, that's true isn't it?

For more than a century, burning fossil fuels has generated most of the energy required to propel our cars, power our businesses, and keep the lights on in our homes. Even today, oil, coal, and gas provide for about 80 percent of our energy needs.

And we’re paying the price. Using fossil fuels for energy has exacted an enormous toll on humanity and the environment—from air and water pollution to global warming.

Well? tell me why do you refer to that activity as "useful"? because if it isn't useful (and it isn't) then your reason for adopting uniformitarianism evaporates.

So I was correct....you really do think that since fossil fuels are bad, the models they use to find them are therefore wrong.

I'm not sure what to say to that, other than that I'll just let it speak for itself.

I'll let you in in a secret Jose, we all believe in God, even you. In the non-Christian case you are the God, people believe in, are devoted to and pursue the interests of, worship their God - themselves; there I told you a fundamental truth do with what you will.

We are our own idol and until that idol is smashed and thrown aside we will continue to worship the idol, only with God's help can we do that.

As I said before, I've zero interest in debates about gods.

How can you distinguish between an earth that is truly billions of years old and one that has been created to look exactly as if it was billions of years old? having all the characteristics and traits that you expect to find in a world that's billions of years old?

It is very obvious that one cannot, we can only assume one or the other, also please note I have not argued for young earth creationism either, I've only been pointing out to you that the uniformitarian view is PURE assumption.

So I have said nothing untrue, by all means choose uniformitarianism but do not try to claim that it is somehow "proven" because it looks convincingly old, what if it was made to look convincingly old?

Admit it, there's no way to tell, science cannot help us here because it could have been designed to look exactly as the scientist expects it to look.

Ah, so Last Thursdayism and solipsism come to the party. It's fascinating how quickly and often creationists will resort to those things, with no apparent appreciation for how they also negate every claim to "truth" that Christianity makes. All those prayers, rituals, scriptures, revelations, prophecies, etc.....none of them can be said to be "true".

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #106]

We have both biological processes, geological processes, magnetic processes and radioactive decay processes.
We have
->accumulation of tree rings(biological systems);

Any biological system is not an accurate measurement of age, because a change in the environment changes the growth rate of the system. Like for example, high precipitation can cause trees to produce 2 tree rings a year instead of one.

Cross dating has problems also because of the difference in the health of tree water movement.

->accumulation of lead in zircon deposits through uranium radioactive decay;

This is dependent on the planet formation theory. Which has major problems.

accumulation of argon in rock minerals through potassium radioactive decay;

This has the assumption that all of the argon was released when the rock was in the molten state. This has been shown to be incorrect. Snelling, A. A. 1998. Andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the implications for potassium-argon ‘dating’, in: Walsh, R. E., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, p. 503–525. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.

accumulation of damaged zones, or tracks, created in crystals during the spontaneous fission of uranium-238;

Uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and can change into Plutonium into Pu-239 and then Pu-239 can absorb a neutron and turn into Pu-240. Pu-240 actually undergoes spontaneous fission very quickly.

In practice, 239 Pu will invariably contain a certain amount of 240 Pu
due to the tendency of 239Pu to absorb an additional neutron during production. 240 Pu's high rate of spontaneous fission events makes it an undesirable contaminant. Weapons-grade plutonium contains no more than 7.0% 240 Pu

Where do the neutrons come from the good old z-pinch. That gives of neutron when fusion takes place because of the Z-pinch. With the problems that stellar evolution has the accumulation of damaged zones, or tracks is more likely caused by z-pinch fusion than by the spontaneous fission of uranium 238.

accumulation of electrons and holes in the crystal lattice of certain minerals as a result of exposure to radiation emitted from radioactive isotopes in the sample and its surroundings; (radioactive decay systems)

same as above.

->accumulation of trapped electrons in defects or holes in the crystal lattice of the quartz sand grain, accumulation of change in the direction of the remanent magnetization of the rocks caused by reversals in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field; (magnetic systems)

The problem here is that if it took millions of years for the magnetic field to change. But that is not what is found.

"They discovered that toward the top of that flow the basalt had recorded a different paleomagnetic orientation than the basalt lower down in the same flow (see Figure 1). Coe and Prévot interpreted this to mean that the geomagnetic field had shifted by about 3° per day during the few days it took this basalt lava flow to cool. Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today. Continuing their painstaking work, a follow-on study reported results of detailed sampling of the basalt flows which straddle the second of the three gaps in the record of changes in the direction of the geomagnetic field.5 They reported that their results indicated the rate at which the orientation of the ancient geomagnetic field had rotated could have reached an astounding 6° per day over an eight-day period during cooling of one of these basalt flows.6 Furthermore, they argued that these field changes recorded in these basalt lava flows at Steens Mountain did reflect genuine changes in the earth’s main magnetic field."
P. Camps, M. Prévot, and R. S. Coe, Revisiting the initial sites of geomagnetic field impulses during the Steens Mountain polarity reversal, Geophysical Journal International 123 (1995): 484–506
R. S. Coe, M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374 (1995): 687–692.

->accumulation of layers of tephra/geologic timekeepers like rock formations(mountain building, erosion and plate tectonics ) with annual layers and provide us a mean to reliable clocks=geologic rates/ annual ice layerings provides us with another clock. (geological systems)

Any layering, in particular, you are speaking of here?

Like Kant said atheists have to go to some make-believe universe in which an event does not have a cause.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Useful result? we have a planet swamped in the ravages of an unfolding fossil fuel driven self destruction and you regard that as useful? seriously?

Slavery and Eugenics were useful too once Jose.

Oh for the love of.......really? That's the best retort you could muster? Are you really making the bizarre argument that fossil fuels are bad, therefore the models they use to find them are wrong?

And you said logic was your specialty!

I'm sure that are plenty who'd take that seriously, many physicist and mathematicians for example, people who understand actual real science not the softer sciences that you are attracted to.

Unless you believe that universe has always existed then of course there must have been a time when gravity did not exist, yes?

Nice try......well....not really.

Seriously though, 30 years of debating science and this is the best you can do? If ever anyone were looking for an indication of how empty creationism is.......

I simply do not share your definition of utility, the very thing you cited as useful could be something that destroys us all, that's true isn't it?

For more than a century, burning fossil fuels has generated most of the energy required to propel our cars, power our businesses, and keep the lights on in our homes. Even today, oil, coal, and gas provide for about 80 percent of our energy needs.

And we’re paying the price. Using fossil fuels for energy has exacted an enormous toll on humanity and the environment—from air and water pollution to global warming.

Well? tell me why do you refer to that activity as "useful"? because if it isn't useful (and it isn't) then your reason for adopting uniformitarianism evaporates.

So I was correct....you really do think that since fossil fuels are bad, the models they use to find them are therefore wrong.

I'm not sure what to say to that, other than that I'll just let it speak for itself.

I'll let you in in a secret Jose, we all believe in God, even you. In the non-Christian case you are the God, people believe in, are devoted to and pursue the interests of, worship their God - themselves; there I told you a fundamental truth do with what you will.

We are our own idol and until that idol is smashed and thrown aside we will continue to worship the idol, only with God's help can we do that.

As I said before, I've zero interest in debates about gods.

How can you distinguish between an earth that is truly billions of years old and one that has been created to look exactly as if it was billions of years old? having all the characteristics and traits that you expect to find in a world that's billions of years old?

It is very obvious that one cannot, we can only assume one or the other, also please note I have not argued for young earth creationism either, I've only been pointing out to you that the uniformitarian view is PURE assumption.

So I have said nothing untrue, by all means choose uniformitarianism but do not try to claim that it is somehow "proven" because it looks convincingly old, what if it was made to look convincingly old?

Admit it, there's no way to tell, science cannot help us here because it could have been designed to look exactly as the scientist expects it to look.

Ah, so Last Thursdayism and solipsism come to the party. It's fascinating how quickly and often creationists will resort to those things, with no apparent appreciation for how they also negate every claim to "truth" that Christianity makes. All those prayers, rituals, scriptures, revelations, prophecies, etc.....none of them can be said to be "true".

You're not answering the question I asked: How can you distinguish between an earth that is truly billions of years old and one that has been created six thousand years ago to look exactly as if it was billions of years old? having all the characteristics and traits that you expect to find in a world that's billions of years old?

[Jose Fly]

You're not answering the question I asked: How can you distinguish between an earth that is truly billions of years old and one that has been created to look exactly as if it was billions of years old? having all the characteristics and traits that you expect to find in a world that's billions of years old?

That's solipsism and last Thursdayism. Basically what you're arguing is that we cannot know anything, because whatever we're looking could really just be some sort of deception by the gods.

If that's the road you want to go down, be my guest. I just wonder if you appreciate what that means for your religious beliefs.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're not answering the question I asked: How can you distinguish between an earth that is truly billions of years old and one that has been created to look exactly as if it was billions of years old? having all the characteristics and traits that you expect to find in a world that's billions of years old?

That's solipsism and last Thursdayism. Basically what you're arguing is that we cannot know anything, because whatever we're looking could really just be some sort of deception by the gods.

If that's the road you want to go down, be my guest. I just wonder if you appreciate what that means for your religious beliefs.

I don't want to "go down" any road, I simply asked you a question that it seems you just do not want to answer.

[Jose Fly]

I don't want to "go down" any road, I simply asked you a question that it seems you just do not want to answer.

I guess you're not really grasping the point here. The answer is, once we invoke "maybe the gods are tricking us" then we cannot ever know anything, including the age of the earth. Of course going down that road brings up far more vital issues and questions than "how old is the earth".

I'd think for folks like you the bigger question would be "How can we tell the difference between a holy book that is of real divine origin and one that isn't but was merely made to look that way by the gods?" Or the same with whatever religious/spiritual experiences you've had. Or even all the other people and things around you.....or even your own existence.

"How old is the earth" becomes a triviality under solipsism/last Thursdayism.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #112]

If you're genuinely interested, I suggest you go find and read some scientific material on the subject.

Ok, it is really easy just repeat after me. I DON'T KNOW, is all you have to say and neither does your "scientific materials".

Having microorganisms next to petroleum deposits is exactly what creation cosmology would predict. Major changes in the topography would also be expected because of isostatic rebound after the flood.
Then go to the oil companies and demonstrate the superiority of YEC in finding fossil fuel deposits. Empty rhetoric is meaningless.

I don't need to because the oil companies do not know where oil comes from.

"The dominant view of the origin of oil amongst western oil companies until 1969 was that it was due to the decay of living matter. Now other views are making themselves heard. To try and resolve the issue of whether oil is biogenic (derived from living matter) or abiogenic (built up from primordial matter and therefore not from living matter) a Hedberg Conference recently took place. The issue was not resolved. This suggests that a third alternative is needed"
https://answersresearchjournal.org/orig ... st-answer/

Do you have anything more specific than they use deep time to find oil?
Read the material I linked to earlier.

I did. And all it talked about were biological processes. And as I stated earlier biological processes are not good examples.

Thanks for playing try again, again.