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.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Q: Do you understand that all these methods support each other?
If they would not be consistent they would not support each other.

Carbon dating tree match with biological dating-tree rings and varves:


https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf

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.

1.The fake problem of excess Argon.
'Thus while Snelling implied that Dalrymple [1969] found severe problems with K-Ar dating when the truth is quite the opposite. Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. Thus Dalrymple’s data is not consistent with a young Earth whatsoever. Indeed, if Dalrymple’s data is representative, 3 times out of 26 the K-Ar method will give a too young date (though by only an extremely trivial amount for a rock that is really millions of years old). The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected (see the previous essay). Even that significant error is only 1.19 million years (and not the 1.60 million years that Snelling claimed). If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years. Thus this data is strongly supportive of mainstream geology.' [author's emphasis]”
http://www.oldearth.org/blind.htm

2. We can analyze rock forming today. They don’t show for example high Sr ration. They are all Rb.

3. Isochron dating does not make assumptions about parent material in a sample.

4. 40 Ar/39 Ar dates of Sanidine rocks from Casti Amanti match with the historical records of the Vesuvius eruption in Ancient Italy.

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

Sir zircon has uranium in its structure. It rejects lead when forming.
So new zircon rocks will contain no lead. Therefore any lead found is from decay of uranium. Since we know the rate of decay of uranium we can use the ratio lead/uranium in a reliable manner to date the mineral.

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.

same as above.

The fission tracks are very sensible to temperature.
Any hypothesis I have seen so far implied conditions that would lead to destruction of these tracks.

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

From today eruptions we know that volcanoes grow by ~ a meter every century. The highest altitude of the island of Hawaii is Mauna Kea 10,200 m above ocean floor.
100 years/m * 10,200 m = ~ 1,020,000 years old.

Thanks to continental drift Atlantic Ocean grows wider every year by 2.5 cm.
The ocean is 3,700 km wide.
(3,700 km * 100, 000 cm/km)/(2.5 cm/year) = 148, 000, 000 years ago American continent started to get away from African continent.

Continental drift supports radiometric dating.


Let's not avoid my main point: The myriad of methods of dating which all support each other.
We have biological clocks, radioactive decay clocks, magnetical clocks, geological clocks, ice accumulation clocks.
When one is positing the laws of the universe coincidently changed in such a way and that the all the clocks coincidently changed in such a way that they support each other showing a false answer: that the earth is young is leaving the real of possibility and getting in the realm of magical thinking which leads to the idea of God manipulating the earth or allowing Satan to manipulate the earth. Which leads to the obvious conclusion of trickery.



Let's not ignore:

3.
If we posit an accelerated process there is a problem. We have to 4 billions of radioactive and heat decay, 4 billions of years of plate tectonics and continental movements, 4 billions of years of geological mountain building and erosion, 4 billions of years of asteroid impacts, 4 billions of years of volcanic activity all cramped in a very short period of time.
All this would increase heat and radiation so much that would make it impossible for anything to survive or last. Rocks and earth crust would vaporize.

Here some calculations by Joe Meert showing the issue of heat:

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/adam.htm

4. Off course a huge number scientists from geology, biology, botany, zoology, genetic, neurobiology, medicine, psychiatry, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, physics, cosmology, chemistry, climatology and most historian scholars-new testament scholars who devoted all their lives to study, who most likely are/were more intelligent then you, are/were all wrong on so many subjects is baffling and you, a mere average human being, are right.

Q: How likely is that that belief which contradicts so many fields of study while considering we have functioning satellites, GPS, phones, PCs, internet, TVs, all kinds of transportations systems, vaccines, antibiotics, all kind of medicines, home heating systems, Electric Light, air conditioning, fridges, self driving cars all because of the above people from all those fields?

[Sherlock Holmes]

First I have not invoked solipsism, but even if I had your personal distaste toward it does not serve to invalidate it as rational worldview.

Yeah you did. You invoked the notion that we cannot truly know anything because the gods may be manipulating things to make them seem different than they appear. And when I pointed out that could apply to everything (not just the age of the earth), you agreed.

Second fossils fuels were described by as you as "useful"

Again, pay better attention. I said the methods used to find them are useful.

Third I assert that you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between a world that's billions of years old and a recently created world that looks to a scientist as though it's billions of years old, I thought we'd agreed on this, if that's not the case just explain how you can distinguish.

Thus solipsism/last Thursdayism.

No Jose, asking a question is not advocating a position, you really need to pay attention to what you write.

Now will you please just answer my question, are you able to distinguish? the correct, honest answer is "no" isn't it? When you've done that, go and read the definition of solipsism, try to pay attention to the definition in future.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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,

<bolding mine>

Agreed. However, we likely test that 'explanatory power' in different ways, which is where the real difference lies.

Exactly.

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

One of the dreams of science is a 'Grand Unified Theory' that fully explains every known force in the universe. We've not achieved that yet.

As a former student of theoretical physics I'm quite aware.

However, science has made amazing progress over a comparatively short amount of time in its attempts to explain any number of individual, detailed observations in the natural world. Perhaps you'd agree that when we focus our world view on the tiny details, it's the scientific world view that has the most explanatory power, but that it becomes increasingly harder to explain 'the overall scope' the further we 'zoom out'.

Yes that's true but I am not discounting science or its utility, after all in my view science and a scientifically understandable universe is itself evidence for a creator. What I do say is that science has limits it cannot be applied outside of those limits, not without making assumptions.

So we can use geology and chemistry and so on to construct a model that the earth is billions of years old, and that's a pretty self consistent model, no argument from me about that. But we cannot prove that age without first assuming that the only way to interpret the evidence is by uniformitarianism. Science has a hard stop - it shows that the creation possesses wonderful internal consistencies and symmetries and laws but it does not allow us to prove uniformitarianism.

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.

<bolding mine>

I'm perplexed. Did you mean to write that? It sounds like you are saying something like. "It's hard to comprehend that evil would exist in a universe without God."

Yes I meant to write that. I see no evolutionary (naturalistic) basis for sadistic torture for example, dismembering people while they are alive, burning people and running around laughing at them, all this and much more goes on all over the world every day, we are insulated from it for the most part.

Scripture indicates that this is due to how humans are predisposed to make themselves their "God" that the self is the primary focus for most people most of the time, this isn't perhaps the thread for such a discussion but yes, I did mean it.

Following the logic:

God is the source of human morals;
Killing and torture are behaviours consistent with those humans who have no morals;
A world without God would have no human morals;
We observe killing, torture, etc. in the world;

Therefore it makes more sense that we live in a universe without God.

Surely?

Well a world without God would not exist, so I can't share the reasoning here. My position is that scripture seems to make it clear that humans need God and are ignorant of God until God so chooses to change that in a person. It is the ignorance of God, the absence of God's spirit that "explains" the brutal, sadistic, cruel world, hard to say more here but this is the gist. Just look at the world around us, a world "we" have made with pollution, mass starvation, wars, child abuse, torture, poverty - there simply has to be a cause for this.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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 really don't understand that. Why would anyone want the world to be godless?

Because we are selfish and want to do as we please.

I actually want there to be a loving, caring God who will grant me life after death and the prospect of meeting loved ones again and living in peace and harmony. Who wouldn't?

But you don't else you'd recognize what I'm saying to you. Humans are innately hostile to God, it is how we were created. You perhaps want "a God" but on your terms, not God's, you have no interest in a complete change of how you think, you are unwilling to abandon your comfortable beliefs, the cozy physical ("fleshly" as it is sometimes termed) world. You might want a God that conforms to your desires, a God of your making.

But, unfortunately, despite what I would prefer my brain has rejected all of that based on everything it has experienced so far. It is most definitely nothing to do with choice. Belief is NOT a matter of choice. We are either convinced that something is true or we are not.

You, all of us, inherently are hostile to God, we despise God and rejoice each time we can push him away from ourselves, God is very unwelcome, man has always rejected God except when God has supernaturally brought us down at heel, enabling us to see what we could not see before.

God created us this way so that we could undergo the experience of seeing what we are without God and understanding God when he does reveal himself to us, each of us goes through or will go through that experience at some point.

I do not have all the answers either, I only know what I have learned here and there, the entire subject is beyond human comprehension I think.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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 really don't understand that. Why would anyone want the world to be godless? I actually want there to be a loving, caring God who will grant me life after death and the prospect of meeting loved ones again and living in peace and harmony. Who wouldn't? But, unfortunately, despite what I would prefer my brain has rejected all of that based on everything it has experienced so far. It is most definitely nothing to do with choice. Belief is NOT a matter of choice. We are either convinced that something is true or we are not.

I agree. I couldn't possibly choose to belief in god/gods. Once I examined the claims of theism and most specifically Christianity and saw that they don't add up, I couldn't continue to believe in God. The kicker was beginning to see the function specific beliefs play. For instance, the belief in an afterlife help humans avoid the reality that death is final. Is there any evidence of an afterlife? None. Is there any evidence humans fear death? Plenty.


Tcg

Well a study of human made religions and institutions and denominations is just that, primarily a study of human culture.

God reveals himself to us individually at a time of his choosing, one cannot find God, one cannot search for God, God reveals himself, we are fleshly, material beings and cannot discover spiritual truths, unless they are revealed to us we remain totally ignorant of them.

God is undiscoverable by mankind.

[Clownboat]

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 really don't understand that. Why would anyone want the world to be godless?

Because we are selfish and want to do as we please.

I actually want there to be a loving, caring God who will grant me life after death and the prospect of meeting loved ones again and living in peace and harmony. Who wouldn't?

But you don't else you'd recognize what I'm saying to you. Humans are innately hostile to God, it is how we were created. You perhaps want "a God" but on your terms, not God's, you have no interest in a complete change of how you think, you are unwilling to abandon your comfortable beliefs, the cozy physical ("fleshly" as it is sometimes termed) world. You might want a God that conforms to your desires, a God of your making.

But, unfortunately, despite what I would prefer my brain has rejected all of that based on everything it has experienced so far. It is most definitely nothing to do with choice. Belief is NOT a matter of choice. We are either convinced that something is true or we are not.

You, all of us, inherently are hostile to God, we despise God and rejoice each time we can push him away from ourselves, God is very unwelcome, man has always rejected God except when God has supernaturally brought us down at heel, enabling us to see what we could not see before.

God created us this way so that we could undergo the experience of seeing what we are without God and understanding God when he does reveal himself to us, each of us goes through or will go through that experience at some point.

I do not have all the answers either, I only know what I have learned here and there, the entire subject is beyond human comprehension I think.

Your argument makes as much sense as claiming that an adult is hostile to Santa Claus, or that you are hostile toward Allah.
You must not understand how utterly silly of a claim this is to make.

[Clownboat]

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 really don't understand that. Why would anyone want the world to be godless? I actually want there to be a loving, caring God who will grant me life after death and the prospect of meeting loved ones again and living in peace and harmony. Who wouldn't? But, unfortunately, despite what I would prefer my brain has rejected all of that based on everything it has experienced so far. It is most definitely nothing to do with choice. Belief is NOT a matter of choice. We are either convinced that something is true or we are not.

I agree. I couldn't possibly choose to belief in god/gods. Once I examined the claims of theism and most specifically Christianity and saw that they don't add up, I couldn't continue to believe in God. The kicker was beginning to see the function specific beliefs play. For instance, the belief in an afterlife help humans avoid the reality that death is final. Is there any evidence of an afterlife? None. Is there any evidence humans fear death? Plenty.


Tcg

Well a study of human made religions and institutions and denominations is just that, primarily a study of human culture.

God reveals himself to us individually at a time of his choosing, one cannot find God, one cannot search for God, God reveals himself, we are fleshly, material beings and cannot discover spiritual truths, unless they are revealed to us we remain totally ignorant of them.

God is undiscoverable by mankind.

That is a lot of claims you have made. Please show that you speak the truth or kindly retract your claims for being nothing more than empty religious platitudes.

"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

[Jose Fly]

Has anyone presented any evidence yet confirming the 6-day creation account in the Bible? All we seem to get are questions flung around attempting to challenge the age of the earth.

I'm rather bemused by this notion that God might have created the universe, including the earth, around six thousand years ago but gave everything the appearance of being billions of years old. I know God is supposed to work in mysterious ways, but that one just boggles the mind. What possible reason could there be for it? I know, I know. Not having an answer doesn't mean there was no reason, but you've really got to wonder. Take God out of the picture and we're left with desperation on the part of believers. It works for me.

Invoking what I call the "trickster gods" is a tacit admission that all the evidence really does point to an ancient universe and earth, which negates a lot of YEC talking points. But then as we've seen here, internal consistency isn't much of a concern for many YEC's. And as you note, "but maybe the gods just made it look that way" is a rather desperate ploy, an argument I would think they would only make as a last resort.

[Jose Fly]

No Jose, asking a question is not advocating a position, you really need to pay attention to what you write.

Ah, the Glen Beck ploy....."I'm just asking questions".

Now will you please just answer my question, are you able to distinguish? the correct, honest answer is "no" isn't it?

I've already answered that. To repeat, no we would not be able to tell the difference between an ancient universe and one that the gods have just made to seem ancient, but is really young. And therefore..........?

When you've done that, go and read the definition of solipsism, try to pay attention to the definition in future.

Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be truly known, except for one's own existence. That's pretty much what you've brought into the discussion.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No Jose, asking a question is not advocating a position, you really need to pay attention to what you write.

Ah, the Glen Beck ploy....."I'm just asking questions".

Now will you please just answer my question, are you able to distinguish? the correct, honest answer is "no" isn't it?

I've already answered that. To repeat, no we would not be able to tell the difference between an ancient universe and one that the gods have just made to seem ancient, but is really young. And therefore..........?

Good, at last. Therefore we cannot scientifically establish the age of the earth without making some initial assumption.

When you've done that, go and read the definition of solipsism, try to pay attention to the definition in future.

Solipsism is the belief that nothing can be truly known, except for one's own existence. That's pretty much what you've brought into the discussion.

No that isn't at all what I brought into the discussion please pay attention.

I believe the world exists therefore I am not a solipsist.