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 am a machine, a product of nature, arguing with me is arguing with nature, it seems utterly futile.

You have made that last part patently obvious for some time now. Nevertheless, is there any evidence that you can provide that supports a 6-day creation or are you merely here to obfuscate?

Well if we accept that there's a God and God can create then really anything is reasonable so if the Bible records what God did then sure, why would God take 48 days and say it was just 6? I'm willing to regard it as true, and everything else I see can be made consistent with that.

[brunumb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #0]

I do not care to spend a lot of time with this but I will give you two. And these are usually the two that most people cite when discussing Creation cosmology.

1. Starlight how could light from stars that are billions of years away reach the Earth in such a short amount of time.

a. Atheistic cosmology has the same problem. It is theorized that the universe has existed for around 14 billion years. And has been expanding ever since. The problem is the smooth temperature of the universe. The temperature of the universe varies the same amount as a cup of water that has been set out overnight in a room at a constant temperature.

Cosmic inflation was given as the answer to this problem. Yet comic inflation has big problems

After spending many years researching the foundations of cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory.

Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?

A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... r=7b6ecff0

Creation Cosmology has a mechanism for the beginning of the universe it has a mechanism for the even temperature of the universe.

2. Radioactive dating

Uranium is found mostly in the continental crust in specific spots. The common explanation is that these areas are leftover from the formation of the solar system. This would mean that stellar evolution would have to be true. This is a big problem. In the current theory, it takes stars to make stars. The problem is Charles's law, collapsing a ball of gas.

It is much more believable that the uranium was caused by underground lightning as a result of z-pinch. Everything I have just mentioned has been observed and the theory behind them know

You must be kidding. There is not a skerrick of evidence for a 6-day creation in any of that. Even then, what you have presented amounts to just speculative questions regarding cosmology without any definitive evidence that any of them are valid or verified.

P.S. An opinion piece based on his recent book by philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg in the popular magazine Scientific American is not much of a hook to hang your hat on.

[brunumb]

I am a machine, a product of nature, arguing with me is arguing with nature, it seems utterly futile.

You have made that last part patently obvious for some time now. Nevertheless, is there any evidence that you can provide that supports a 6-day creation or are you merely here to obfuscate?

Well if we accept that there's a God and God can create then really anything is reasonable so if the Bible records what God did then sure, why would God take 48 days and say it was just 6? I'm willing to regard it as true, and everything else I see can be made consistent with that.

If you believe in a magical being that can do anything, then anything is possible for that being. What about probable? Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith. Argument from "the Bible says" is really too funny for a science forum.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I am a machine, a product of nature, arguing with me is arguing with nature, it seems utterly futile.

You have made that last part patently obvious for some time now. Nevertheless, is there any evidence that you can provide that supports a 6-day creation or are you merely here to obfuscate?

Well if we accept that there's a God and God can create then really anything is reasonable so if the Bible records what God did then sure, why would God take 48 days and say it was just 6? I'm willing to regard it as true, and everything else I see can be made consistent with that.

If you believe in a magical being that can do anything, then anything is possible for that being. What about probable? Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith. Argument from "the Bible says" is really too funny for a science forum.

You're an evolutionist so I fully expect you to use terms like "probable" and "likely" and "probably" in a glib manner, loosely hoping nobody will pull you up.

These terms are misused though, probability theory is a branch of mathematics not physics, we use statistics to model physical systems but it's a model, not reality.

What does - epistemologically - what does "probably" mean here? Is it probable God created the universe? is it improbable? what do such assertions mean?

Probabilities are calculated from source data, they are not just made up out of thin air, they are not just a reflection of what you feel.

Causes for one off events can't be attributed probabilities, causes for events for which we have one example, cannot be attributed probabilities.

I'm frankly sick and tired of meaningless statements like "Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith" I mean, that - to me - seems to be 99% emotion and 1% rationality.

[Jose Fly]

Well if we accept that there's a God and God can create then really anything is reasonable so if the Bible records what God did then sure, why would God take 48 days and say it was just 6? I'm willing to regard it as true, and everything else I see can be made consistent with that.

Knew it.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #0]
I do not care to spend a lot of time with this but I will give you two. And these are usually the two that most people cite when discussing Creation cosmology.

Considering the implications, I'd thought the theists be happy to carry on about this.

1. Starlight how could light from stars that are billions of years away reach the Earth in such a short amount of time.

"Short" being a relative, and subjective term.

Do we propose there's a god just cause we can't figure out our wimmenfolk?

a. Atheistic cosmology has the same problem. It is theorized that the universe has existed for around 14 billion years. And has been expanding ever since. The problem is the smooth temperature of the universe. The temperature of the universe varies the same amount as a cup of water that has been set out overnight in a room at a constant temperature.

So we scrap those parts of a hypothesis that don't comport, we don't toss our hands in the air and claim a god did it.

Cosmic inflation was given as the answer to this problem. Yet comic inflation has big problems

Same as above.

After spending many years researching the foundations of cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory.

How does a failure here confirm a God's involvement?

How does it confirm a six day creation?

Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data,

But "God did it" ain't?

, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?

A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... r=7b6ecff0

Creation Cosmology has a mechanism for the beginning of the universe it has a mechanism for the even temperature of the universe.

2. Radioactive dating

Uranium is found mostly in the continental crust in specific spots. The common explanation is that these areas are leftover from the formation of the solar system. This would mean that stellar evolution would have to be true. This is a big problem. In the current theory, it takes stars to make stars. The problem is Charles's law, collapsing a ball of gas.

It is much more believable that the uranium was caused by underground lightning as a result of z-pinch. Everything I have just mentioned has been observed and the theory behind them know

All you're doing is attempting to refute competing notions, false dichotomously.

What actual, credible, and reliable evidence can you present in support of a six day creation?

[brunumb]

I am a machine, a product of nature, arguing with me is arguing with nature, it seems utterly futile.

You have made that last part patently obvious for some time now. Nevertheless, is there any evidence that you can provide that supports a 6-day creation or are you merely here to obfuscate?

Well if we accept that there's a God and God can create then really anything is reasonable so if the Bible records what God did then sure, why would God take 48 days and say it was just 6? I'm willing to regard it as true, and everything else I see can be made consistent with that.

If you believe in a magical being that can do anything, then anything is possible for that being. What about probable? Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith. Argument from "the Bible says" is really too funny for a science forum.

You're an evolutionist so I fully expect you to use terms like "probable" and "likely" and "probably" in a glib manner, loosely hoping nobody will pull you up.

These terms are misused though, probability theory is a branch of mathematics not physics, we use statistics to model physical systems but it's a model, not reality.

What does - epistemologically - what does "probably" mean here? Is it probable God created the universe? is it improbable? what do such assertions mean?

Probabilities are calculated from source data, they are not just made up out of thin air, they are not just a reflection of what you feel.

Causes for one off events can't be attributed probabilities, causes for events for which we have one example, cannot be attributed probabilities.

I'm frankly sick and tired of meaningless statements like "Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith" I mean, that - to me - seems to be 99% emotion and 1% rationality.

So creation is probably* just made up stuff.

*probably
/ˈprɒbəbli/
Learn to pronounce
adverb
adverb: probably

almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Probabilities are calculated from source data, they are not just made up out of thin air, they are not just a reflection of what you feel.

Causes for one off events can't be attributed probabilities, causes for events for which we have one example, cannot be attributed probabilities.

Meh.

I don't much fret the probability of a six day creation, as I ask proponents thereof to show it occurred.

I'm frankly sick and tired of meaningless statements like "Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith" I mean, that - to me - seems to be 99% emotion and 1% rationality.

Now consider how that 99% emotion and 1% rationality might apply to folks who declare the universe was created in six days.

God belief is inherently tied to emotion, as we see when theists seek to impose their God's emotions (wants, morals, etc.) onto others.

[alexxcJRO]

I am a machine, a product of nature, arguing with me is arguing with nature, it seems utterly futile.

You have made that last part patently obvious for some time now. Nevertheless, is there any evidence that you can provide that supports a 6-day creation or are you merely here to obfuscate?

Well if we accept that there's a God and God can create then really anything is reasonable so if the Bible records what God did then sure, why would God take 48 days and say it was just 6? I'm willing to regard it as true, and everything else I see can be made consistent with that.

If you believe in a magical being that can do anything, then anything is possible for that being. What about probable? Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith. Argument from "the Bible says" is really too funny for a science forum.

You're an evolutionist so I fully expect you to use terms like "probable" and "likely" and "probably" in a glib manner, loosely hoping nobody will pull you up.

These terms are misused though, probability theory is a branch of mathematics not physics, we use statistics to model physical systems but it's a model, not reality.

What does - epistemologically - what does "probably" mean here? Is it probable God created the universe? is it improbable? what do such assertions mean?

Probabilities are calculated from source data, they are not just made up out of thin air, they are not just a reflection of what you feel.

Causes for one off events can't be attributed probabilities, causes for events for which we have one example, cannot be attributed probabilities.

I'm frankly sick and tired of meaningless statements like "Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith" I mean, that - to me - seems to be 99% emotion and 1% rationality.

1. Sir when scientists, atheists say probable, most likely, likely they mean it as a percentage of confidence as opposed to being certain.
It’s all about being a realist, because no one can know things for certain no matter how much religious folks like Sye Ten Bruggencate insist the opposite can be true.

2. Let’s say one says: "something X was caused by a Strigoi".
One has to first show Strigoi are real. Then one can put forward the hypothesis: the thing X was maybe caused by a Strigoi.
Then even if Strigoi are a reality it still may be the case that X was not caused by a Strigoi.
Coupling 2 unknowns in causal link seems rather silly.
Also is silly, illogical to believe “something X was caused by a Strigoi” is true when one cannot falsify “a Strigoi exist” and consequently “something X was caused by a Strigoi”.

3. I bet you will believe in alien life, alien abductions only when presented with compelling, sufficient evidence.
Q: Why should we make a special case for God? Shouldn’t we demand compelling, sufficient evidence?
Most atheists are unconvinced so far because the evidence is extremely weak.
We have for all religions anecdotal unfalsifiable personal experiences and testimonials/rumors/oral traditions.
We have the same evidence for alien abductions, Strigoi/YETI/ghosts/poltergeists encounters and so on: anecdotal unfalsifiable personal experiences and testimonials/rumors/oral traditions.
Most people don’t believe the things enumerated above are real. Most are religious.
For some reason the same evidence is not sufficient for belief in alien abductions, Strigoi/YETI/ghosts/poltergeists encounters and so on but it is for belief in religious tales.
The double standard is obvious.

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
Probabilities are calculated from source data, they are not just made up out of thin air, they are not just a reflection of what you feel.

Causes for one off events can't be attributed probabilities, causes for events for which we have one example, cannot be attributed probabilities.

Meh.

I don't much fret the probability of a six day creation, as I ask proponents thereof to show it occurred.

Why? the knowledge and understanding necessary to grasp this is beyond your ken. I and others can show you but you will not understand, you can only see the world through the spectacles of your current views of it. You can't understand and until God begins to open your mind you will not understand so stop asking over and over.

I'm frankly sick and tired of meaningless statements like "Until you can demonstrate the actual existence of this magical being everything falls back on unwarranted faith" I mean, that - to me - seems to be 99% emotion and 1% rationality.

Now consider how that 99% emotion and 1% rationality might apply to folks who declare the universe was created in six days.

God belief is inherently tied to emotion, as we see when theists seek to impose their God's emotions (wants, morals, etc.) onto others.

No it isn't, again your own knowledge colors how you see things, is your knowledge perfect? have you ever reviewed your understanding of something? said to yourself "Oh, man, but I always thought..." if you have not then you have never learned anything, if you have experienced that then retain an open mind so that you can experience it again, that's how we learn.

You are part of what's involved in understanding, you cannot extricate yourself from that reality, you must change how you think and until that happens God will seem like a joke, a delusion, made up stuff, that's how I used to see it.