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]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #457]

It seems you hadn't noticed, but I'm no longer suspended.

[Jose Fly]

Nor do I have the slightest idea what criteria will be followed by those in charge to decide how to call the owner of a piece of skull or other bone that is buried somewhere...

So, you have absolutely no idea how a working paleontologist would go about identifying a bone fragment, but you know in your heart of hearts that their answers are wrong?

Sorry to be so blunt, but......yes! Eloi has already made it abundantly clear that he/she will always reject the conclusions of science if they disagree with the Bible.

It's not an approach I would ever take, but at least Eloi has been open about it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #453]

I have not found in my research any other method, only the C14 method that is used to directly date this type of material.

Some Homo naledi teeth were directly dated using U-series electron spin resonance and this age was compatible with dating of the sediments the bones and teeth were found in:

https://www.britannica.com/story/measur ... omo-naledi

And here is a summary from the article so you don't have to click on the link and read it:

"They established the dates of the sediments in which the bones of H. naledi were found using Uranium-Thorium dating (a technique capable of estimating the age of a sample out to roughly 1 million years). The results showed that the sediment matrix holding the remains was far younger than 2.5–2.8 million years old; it was only 236,000–414,000 years old. Another radiometric dating technique called U-series electron spin resonance (US-ESR) dating was used to validate these results by dating the remains of some of the teeth found in the sediment along with a few grains of sediment. Taken together, the data revealed that the age of the remains of H. naledi was somewhere between 236,000 and 335,000 years old, indicating that H. naledi was present during the Pleistocene Epoch in southern Africa."

I was even accused of not reading the sites, not considering that I could have read them from start to finish looking for an answer, and it wasn't there.

Hmmm ... sounds like you didn't read the sites ("could have read them"), but somehow still concluded that the information wasn't there. How does that work?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #460]

No, that is the point he's making, he said that other than C14 dating how can they date these other fossils that are older, older than the limits of C14 dating.

That's why I posted links to articles describing other methods, but as usual they were ignored and dismissed out of hand. I just posted an example for dating the Homo neladi remains ... and a short summary from the article so no one has to expend the inordinate amount of effort required to read a short web article. How does that fit in with your dating gap?

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps if your own beliefs were not predicated on the reward of an afterlife, perhaps if your own beliefs weren't predicated on the fear of eternal damnation, perhaps if you had one ounce of...

A few years ago, one JW described to me what would happen if a member were ever to become convinced of the reality of evolution. They would be questioned by JW leaders and if they refused to disavow evolution, they would be excommunicated, which would mean they would be shunned and cast out by all their JW friends and family.

IOW, any JW who dares to acknowledge the reality of evolution will face emotional and social ruin and devastation.

That's quite the incentive to do whatever you can to keep evolution at bay, isn't it?

[Jose Fly]

You admit to having no idea yet have no problem attacking the science involved. I feel that you do not ask your many questions in good faith. The answers are readily available on the internet, but you seem to expect a compelling case in a paragraph on a religion forum. Even then, when you get answers, rather than actually refuting the content you merely reject it or deny it is valid.

Which is exactly what you would expect from someone who denies evolution for religious, and not scientific, reasons. Such a person will know almost nothing about the science of evolutionary biology, except that it's wrong.

Honestly, I find it hard to believe anyone is surprised at this.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #450]
Agree,

1) Science IS NOT evolutionist. Some scientists are, but others are not. It is not the same to refute an evolutionist in some matter, than to "attack science".

2) Scientists disagree with each other many more times than is thought. This occurs not only between believers and non-believers, but also between non-believers and between some evolutionists and other evolutionists. Contradicting an evolutionist IS NOT "attacking science" because no single evolutionist or group of evolutionists represents the entire body of scientists in the world.

To accuse someone of "attacking science" they would first have to clearly define what the word SCIENCE actually implies. "Scientific" frauds are not true science, just false science.

Piltdown Man was believed in the scientific community for about 50 years; for 20 years the Indian fraud on the Himalayan man remained undisclosed... Do the math: how many more frauds and for how long. Obviously, many of the "evolutionist" conclusions are supported by frauds that are not yet discovered and others that arise. There are many interests involved. What is the purpose of science today? Discover the truth? To look for more money to continue "discovering truths"?

As a sensible and smart person that I consider myself to be, I would not change my faith in the Scriptures, which have been shown to be true, to put it on a certain group of scientists (which is not the same as SCIENCE), who want me to believe that something has been proven, when the truth is that these conclusions are supported by fallible and non-absolute methods, frauds (discovered or yet to be discovered), and interests that have nothing to do with discovering the truth.

A question: Why are you trying to argue about the science, when your position is based in your religious beliefs?

Do you believe that science has the potential to disprove aspects of the Bible?

[Jose Fly]

Biologists likely consider certain things to be "facts" that a physicist never would.

On behalf of biologists.....stay in your own lane "Sherlock".

[Eloi]

As I said in another post, we are educated about what scientists say. We are educated by a group of brothers who do care that we are up to date in order to understand the new trends in the world and to be able to explain to others why none of this is a reason to lose faith in the Scriptures. Believers are not irrational people as some would like to make it seem.

In this article of one of our magazines (1986) you can see that we are shown different dating methods that scientists use. Although many of us do not have time to read everything that the different scientific institutions publish, we do have a group of brothers willing to analyze them and show us the summaries of those publications honestly. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101986686

I found this part of the article particularly interesting:

Paleontologists Try to Date the Fossils

Paleontologists have attempted to copy the geologists’ success in dating rocks only a few million years old. Some of their fossils, they believe, might fall in that age range. Alas, the potassium-argon clock does not work so well for them! Of course, fossils are not found in igneous rocks but only in sediments, and for these radiometric dating is usually not trustworthy.

An illustration of this is when fossils have been buried in a thick fall of volcanic ash that has later been consolidated to form a tuff. This is actually a sedimentary stratum, but it is made of igneous matter that solidified in the air. If it can be dated, it will serve to give the age of the fossil enclosed in it.

Such a case was found in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans. First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. Most disappointing to evolutionists was the finding that the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking​—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.

The conclusion was that “inherited argon” was spoiling the measurements. Not all the argon previously formed had been boiled out of the molten rock. The clock had not been set to zero. If only one tenth of 1 percent of the argon previously produced by the potassium was left in the rock when it melted in the volcano, the clock would be started with a built-in age of nearly a million years. As one expert put it: “Some of the dates must be wrong, and if some are wrong maybe all of them are wrong.”

Notwithstanding expert opinions that these dates may be quite meaningless, the original age of 1.75 million years for the Olduvai fossils continues to be quoted in popular magazines committed to evolution. They give the lay reader no warning that such ages are really no more than guesses.

PD: Ask yourself why evolutionists keep trying to disqualify believers, as if we don't know what we're talking about.

[Difflugia]

You admit to having no idea yet have no problem attacking the science involved.

A phrase I see thrown around here rather a lot, directed at those who regard the bible as inspired, is "attacking science" or the equally emotive "denying science". But disagreeing with some person's interpretation of science is not to attack science but to attack the interpretation or the underlying assumptions.

That's not what's happening in this conversation, to "those who regard the Bible as inspired" or anyone else. This is the comment being called an attack on science:

Nor do I have the slightest idea what criteria will be followed by those in charge to decide how to call the owner of a piece of skull or other bone that is buried somewhere... Aren't they calling "species" what it is only a normal race of human beings, like the ones that exist today? All races are nothing more than genetic variations of the same species. Dividing ancient humans into species is like making believe that human races differ in evolutionary status.

That's not a disagreement with any particular "interpretation" because the commenter hasn't "the slightest idea" what that interpretation is.

1) Science IS NOT evolutionist. Some scientists are, but others are not. It is not the same to refute an evolutionist in some matter, than to "attack science".

Then what specifically about the process of identifying remains do you think is wrong and can be refuted?

2) Scientists disagree with each other many more times than is thought.

Thought by whom and how much more? Every single paper is a scientist disagreeing with somebody. I certainly know that. Who are you claiming doesn't know that?

This occurs not only between believers and non-believers, but also between non-believers and between some evolutionists and other evolutionists. Contradicting an evolutionist IS NOT "attacking science" because no single evolutionist or group of evolutionists represents the entire body of scientists in the world.

You haven't contradicted an evolutionist or group of evolutionists. You've said that even though you don't know anything about paleontology, conclusions by paleontologists are wrong.

To accuse someone of "attacking science" they would first have to clearly define what the word SCIENCE actually implies.

Paleontology is a branch of science. I'm pretty sure that definition is generally agreed upon.

"Scientific" frauds are not true science, just false science.

You mentioned one unnamed scientist from a third-hand source at least thirty years ago about something that happened twenty years before that. Neither you nor your source offered enough information to track down the original source, the scientist involved, or even what form the original fraud took. With that in mind, yes, that guy was a bad person and I hope he lost his job. Is there more to your argument than "this one time there was a dishonest scientist?"

Piltdown Man was believed in the scientific community for about 50 years; for 20 years the Indian fraud on the Himalayan man remained undisclosed... Do the math: how many more frauds and for how long.

So far, your math adds up to two.

Obviously, many of the "evolutionist" conclusions are supported by frauds that are not yet discovered and others that arise.

How does one fraud in 1912 and another sometime around 1970 make it "obvious" that "many conclusions are supported by frauds that are not yet discovered?"

There are many interests involved. What is the purpose of science today? Discover the truth? To look for more money to continue "discovering truths"?

How about you actully tell us what you think these shadowy interests are and how they're subverting the process of science to get their hands on that filthy science lucre.

As a sensible and smart person that I consider myself to be, I would not change my faith in the Scriptures, which have been shown to be true, to put it on a certain group of scientists (which is not the same as SCIENCE), who want me to believe that something has been proven, when the truth is that these conclusions are supported by fallible and non-absolute methods, frauds (discovered or yet to be discovered), and interests that have nothing to do with discovering the truth.

That seems sensible, yes.