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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

The actual real point here (which I now think you've helped me demonstrate) was for me to show that your reliance on science as a means for discovering knowledge is based entirely on assumption, it rests on nothing more that trust, faith.

At no point either did I suggest or even hint that "maybe the Gods are tricking us" - I for example do not feel I've been tricked, nor dare I say, do millions of other Christians. Prior to my conversion I can see that I tricked myself, I willingly and willfully chose to interpret the world in a way I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be Godless, I wanted to believe in a Star Trek like future, where we look forward to a wonderful future brought to us by science and technology, that desire was what drove my choice - it was a choice too, even if that wasn't clear to me at the time.

I agree with you though, this subject does bring up many more issues than the age of the earth.

Furthermore, my position is not one of solipsism, I do believe there is an external reality and that you and others are real minds just like me, that is not a solipsist (though the solipsist too is not demonstrably wrong to take the view they take).

The situation as I see it is that we each choose on what to base our world views, we each have reasons for that choice, we each perhaps looks for the world view that has the most explanatory power, I think "God" explains more than "Not God". That is in the overall scope of what I see around me, not just the physical universe but humans, killing, lying, selfishness, imminent destruction of the planet, torture, brutality and so on all of these things make no sense (or are very hard to comprehend) in a universe without God, without right and wrong, in my opinion anyway.

[Jose Fly]

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".

LOL....you are among the last people on earth I'd ever listen to when it comes to what is or isn't in science journals.

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/

I have zero interest in what an anti-science organization thinks about such matters.

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

Riiiiiiight....because you say so, being a renowned expert in the subject and all.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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".

LOL....you are among the last people on earth I'd ever listen to when it comes to what is or isn't in science journals.

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/

I have zero interest in what an anti-science organization thinks about such matters.

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

Riiiiiiight....because you say so, being a renowned expert in the subject and all.

May I draw your attention to this:

In the 1950's, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

This so-called "abiogenic" petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

Taken from the article The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil in Live Science.

Also see:

Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.
All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.
More recently, Forbes presented a similar discussion. In 2008 it reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don't come from fossils; they're synthesized deep within the earth's mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated.
[Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?]
The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth" that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. "All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits."
Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60 percent of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it.

Taken from the article Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring in US World Report and News.

[Jose Fly]

The actual real point here (which I now think you've helped me demonstrate) was for me to show that your reliance on science as a means for discovering knowledge is based entirely on assumption, it rests on nothing more that trust, faith.

Under solipsism/last Thursdayism, yes. But that doesn't apply to just science, it applies to everything.

At no point either did I suggest or even hint that "maybe the Gods are tricking us"

Yeah you did, just not in those exact words. You presented the scenario that we cannot "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". Whether or not you see that as a "trick" is besides the point.

I for example do not feel I've been tricked, nor dare I say, do millions of other Christians.

But that's just an assumption, correct?

Prior to my conversion I can see that I tricked myself, I willingly and willfully chose to interpret the world in a way I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be Godless, I wanted to believe in a Star Trek like future, where we look forward to a wonderful future brought to us by science and technology, that desire was what drove my choice - it was a choice too, even if that wasn't clear to me at the time.

But you are merely assuming that those were all real experiences, correct?

Furthermore, my position is not one of solipsism, I do believe there is an external reality and that you and others are real minds just like me, that is not a solipsist (though the solipsist too is not demonstrably wrong to take the view they take).

But that's all merely an assumption, correct?

The situation as I see it is that we each choose on what to base our world views, we each have reasons for that choice, we each perhaps looks for the world view that has the most explanatory power, I think "God" explains more than "Not God". That is in the overall scope of what I see around me, not just the physical universe but humans, killing, lying, selfishness, imminent destruction of the planet, torture, brutality and so on all of these things make no sense (or are very hard to comprehend) in a universe without God, in my opinion anyway.

And all that is merely an assumption, correct?

[Jose Fly]

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".

LOL....you are among the last people on earth I'd ever listen to when it comes to what is or isn't in science journals.

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/

I have zero interest in what an anti-science organization thinks about such matters.

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

Riiiiiiight....because you say so, being a renowned expert in the subject and all.

May I draw your attention to this:

In the 1950's, however, a few Russian scientists began questioning this traditional view and proposed instead that petroleum could form naturally deep inside the Earth.

This so-called "abiogenic" petroleum might seep upward through cracks formed by asteroid impacts to form underground pools, according to one hypothesis. Some geologists have suggested probing ancient impact craters in the search for oil.

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

Taken from the article The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil in Live Science.

Also see:

Thomas Gold, a respected astronomer and professor emeritus at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, has held for years that oil is actually a renewable, primordial syrup continually manufactured by the Earth under ultrahot conditions and tremendous pressures. As this substance migrates toward the surface, it is attacked by bacteria, making it appear to have an organic origin dating back to the dinosaurs, he says.
All of which has led some scientists to a radical theory: Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be.
More recently, Forbes presented a similar discussion. In 2008 it reported a group of Russian and Ukrainian scientists say that oil and gas don't come from fossils; they're synthesized deep within the earth's mantle by heat, pressure, and other purely chemical means, before gradually rising to the surface. Under the so-called abiotic theory of oil, finding all the energy we need is just a matter of looking beyond the traditional basins where fossils might have accumulated.
[Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?]
The idea that oil comes from fossils "is a myth" that needs changing according to petroleum engineer Vladimir Kutcherov, speaking at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. "All kinds of rocks could have oil and gas deposits."
Alexander Kitchka of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences estimates that 60 percent of the content of all oil is abiotic in origin and not from fossil fuels. He says companies should drill deeper to find it.

Taken from the article Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring in US World Report and News.

And.......?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The actual real point here (which I now think you've helped me demonstrate) was for me to show that your reliance on science as a means for discovering knowledge is based entirely on assumption, it rests on nothing more that trust, faith.

Under solipsism/last Thursdayism, yes. But that doesn't apply to just science, it applies to everything.

Yes.

At no point either did I suggest or even hint that "maybe the Gods are tricking us"

Yeah you did, just not in those exact words. You presented the scenario that we cannot "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". Whether or not you see that as a "trick" is besides the point.

No Jose, I most certainly did not. One's inability to distinguish does not equate with being deceived Jose, but even if it did that wouldn't serve to change anything, so what if God did deceive you? Can one who creates not do as he pleases with what he has created?

Consider:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

I for example do not feel I've been tricked, nor dare I say, do millions of other Christians.

But that's just an assumption, correct?

Yes.

Prior to my conversion I can see that I tricked myself, I willingly and willfully chose to interpret the world in a way I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be Godless, I wanted to believe in a Star Trek like future, where we look forward to a wonderful future brought to us by science and technology, that desire was what drove my choice - it was a choice too, even if that wasn't clear to me at the time.

But you are merely assuming that those were all real experiences, correct?

All my experiences are real and that is not an assumption, this is a self evident truth, cogito, ergo sum.

Furthermore, my position is not one of solipsism, I do believe there is an external reality and that you and others are real minds just like me, that is not a solipsist (though the solipsist too is not demonstrably wrong to take the view they take).

But that's all merely an assumption, correct?

Yes.

The situation as I see it is that we each choose on what to base our world views, we each have reasons for that choice, we each perhaps looks for the world view that has the most explanatory power, I think "God" explains more than "Not God". That is in the overall scope of what I see around me, not just the physical universe but humans, killing, lying, selfishness, imminent destruction of the planet, torture, brutality and so on all of these things make no sense (or are very hard to comprehend) in a universe without God, in my opinion anyway.

And all that is merely an assumption, correct?

Yes.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #122]

LOL....you are among the last people on earth I'd ever listen to when it comes to what is or isn't in science journals.
I don't need to because the oil companies do not know where oil comes from.

You are open to prove me wrong.

"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/
I have zero interest in what an anti-science organization thinks about such matters.

The Hedberg Conference has nothing to do with creation cosmology.

I did. And all it talked about were biological processes. And as I stated earlier biological processes are not good examples.
Riiiiiiight....because you say so, is a renowned expert in the subject and all.

That is why this form advertises as a civil debate to discuss issues. If you do not agree with me prove me wrong. That is why this is called a debate. But if you do not feel like you are capable of engaging that is fine.

[Jose Fly]

The actual real point here (which I now think you've helped me demonstrate) was for me to show that your reliance on science as a means for discovering knowledge is based entirely on assumption, it rests on nothing more that trust, faith.

Under solipsism/last Thursdayism, yes. But that doesn't apply to just science, it applies to everything.

Yes.

At no point either did I suggest or even hint that "maybe the Gods are tricking us"

Yeah you did, just not in those exact words. You presented the scenario that we cannot "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". Whether or not you see that as a "trick" is besides the point.

One's inability to distinguish does not equate with being deceived Jose, but even if it did that wouldn't serve to change anything, so what if God did deceive you? Can one who creates not do as he pleases with what he has created?

Consider:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

I for example do not feel I've been tricked, nor dare I say, do millions of other Christians.

But that's just an assumption, correct?

Yes.

Prior to my conversion I can see that I tricked myself, I willingly and willfully chose to interpret the world in a way I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be Godless, I wanted to believe in a Star Trek like future, where we look forward to a wonderful future brought to us by science and technology, that desire was what drove my choice - it was a choice too, even if that wasn't clear to me at the time.

But you are merely assuming that those were all real experiences, correct?

All my experiences are real and that is not an assumption, this is a self evident truth, cogito, ergo sum.

Furthermore, my position is not one of solipsism, I do believe there is an external reality and that you and others are real minds just like me, that is not a solipsist (though the solipsist too is not demonstrably wrong to take the view they take).

But that's all merely an assumption, correct?

Yes.

The situation as I see it is that we each choose on what to base our world views, we each have reasons for that choice, we each perhaps looks for the world view that has the most explanatory power, I think "God" explains more than "Not God". That is in the overall scope of what I see around me, not just the physical universe but humans, killing, lying, selfishness, imminent destruction of the planet, torture, brutality and so on all of these things make no sense (or are very hard to comprehend) in a universe without God, in my opinion anyway.

And all that is merely an assumption, correct?

Yes.

Again, it's fascinating to see how, in their desperation to deny scientific conclusions about things, creationists are willing to put everything they believe into the "merely assumptions" bin.

Like I said.....be my guest.

[Jose Fly]

You are open to prove me wrong.

You and I have been around that bush countless times. One of the main things I learned from those exchanges is that you are absolutely devoted to your religious beliefs and will not deviate from, or alter them no matter what. I recall many, many times where I'd go through the trouble of looking up, reading, and explaining scientific papers for you only to see you completely ignore it all and act as if no one had ever said a thing.

Unless you've corrected that stereotypical denialist behavior, I have zero interest in tilting at that windmill yet again.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The actual real point here (which I now think you've helped me demonstrate) was for me to show that your reliance on science as a means for discovering knowledge is based entirely on assumption, it rests on nothing more that trust, faith.

Under solipsism/last Thursdayism, yes. But that doesn't apply to just science, it applies to everything.

Yes.

At no point either did I suggest or even hint that "maybe the Gods are tricking us"

Yeah you did, just not in those exact words. You presented the scenario that we cannot "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". Whether or not you see that as a "trick" is besides the point.

One's inability to distinguish does not equate with being deceived Jose, but even if it did that wouldn't serve to change anything, so what if God did deceive you? Can one who creates not do as he pleases with what he has created?

Consider:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

I for example do not feel I've been tricked, nor dare I say, do millions of other Christians.

But that's just an assumption, correct?

Yes.

Prior to my conversion I can see that I tricked myself, I willingly and willfully chose to interpret the world in a way I wanted it to be. I wanted it to be Godless, I wanted to believe in a Star Trek like future, where we look forward to a wonderful future brought to us by science and technology, that desire was what drove my choice - it was a choice too, even if that wasn't clear to me at the time.

But you are merely assuming that those were all real experiences, correct?

All my experiences are real and that is not an assumption, this is a self evident truth, cogito, ergo sum.

Furthermore, my position is not one of solipsism, I do believe there is an external reality and that you and others are real minds just like me, that is not a solipsist (though the solipsist too is not demonstrably wrong to take the view they take).

But that's all merely an assumption, correct?

Yes.

The situation as I see it is that we each choose on what to base our world views, we each have reasons for that choice, we each perhaps looks for the world view that has the most explanatory power, I think "God" explains more than "Not God". That is in the overall scope of what I see around me, not just the physical universe but humans, killing, lying, selfishness, imminent destruction of the planet, torture, brutality and so on all of these things make no sense (or are very hard to comprehend) in a universe without God, in my opinion anyway.

And all that is merely an assumption, correct?

Yes.

Again, it's fascinating to see how, in their desperation to deny scientific conclusions about things, creationists are willing to put everything they believe into the "merely assumptions" bin.

Like I said.....be my guest.

I never said I "merely" assumed anything, I - like you I presume - have justifications for selecting among the possible assumptions.

Nor is what I say the result of a desperation to deny anything, I have stated the truth we all build a worldview based on assumptions and yours are no more free of this than mine.

Let me paraphrase what you said to help you see the futility:

Again, it's fascinating to see how, in their desperation to deny God as creator of things, materialists are willing to put everything they believe into the "merely assumptions" bin.

The problem faced by the atheists is that they are only able to see the world through the blinkered spectacles of materialism, the very devotion to science actually prevents them from seeing much more, they see only what they allow themselves to see and miss everything else, they filter out God and then sarcastically ask "OK, so tell me, where is this God then?"