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.

[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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #98]

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? you have not heard of climate change where you work?

This wins the strawman of the month award! Jose provides an example of how fossil fuel companies use old earth models to find their product to illustrate why old earth models work, and you've twisted that to suggest he is claiming that climate change due to fossil fuel use is useful and then criticizing him for having that stance! Did you really expect anyone would buy such blatant strawmanning?

And why would any god being create a planet like Earth some 6000 years ago and "make it appear old"? Who/what does that benefit? I realize you can attribute virtually anythng to a god being and not be required to have any rationale for it (god does what god does), but seriously ... what other reason would this have been done other than to fool humans for some reason? It is such a silly argument any way you look at it.

[brunumb]

And why would any god being create a planet like Earth some 6000 years ago and "make it appear old"? Who/what does that benefit?

Not to mention billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, black holes, gamma rays, quasars, etc., all totally irrelevant to a tiny cohort of people sprawled across a tiny planet, largely inhospitable to human habitation, learning a few lessons that may ultimately help them get into heaven.

[brunumb]

This is what I now refer to it as indoctrination because it is, repeatedly telling people over and over that X is true, with our without supporting logical arguments, does amount to indoctrination, doubt was and is actively discouraged with silliness like "evolution is a fact" and other standard chants and mantras.

Take out 'evolution' from your statement and that certainly describes religious indoctrination. It's what happens from the day a child is born so that their brain more or less gets hard-wired to accept belief in their god(s) long before they are capable of reasoning and evaluating what they have been told is the supposed truth. That is a far cry from the teaching of evolutionary theory as a subset of the science curriculum.

[Diagoras]

In simple terms uniformitarianism means:

...is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

You'll see that this - correctly - describes the term as being an assumption.

Now if we assume that we can develop models that lead to the earth being billions of years old.

And why would we develop such models? The reason would be to make observations of our natural environment and then test the validity of our models against them. "If these sediment layers were laid down several million years ago, we would expect to see...", etc.

But why assume that? Why is that assumption any better than assuming the Bible tells the truth?

Obviously, because the same natural world observations have run into serious problems when a 'Biblical truth' model is used.

If we assume the Bible is a meaningful revealed record of the past then we can easily work out that the earth was created about six thousands years ago and the creation took say, six days.

<bolding mine>

Worked out from reading the Bible though, not by comparison with observed facts about the world. There's the problem.

That explanation is not at odds with anything we can observe today, unless we assume uniformitarianism, which of course in this exercise we have not assumed.

<bolding mine>

On the contrary - the Biblical explanation for the age of the Earth is at odds with practically everything we can observe today. Therefore, we are faced with the choice of either assuming that the 'natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations' have (somehow) changed over time - or, without making any additional assumptions about natural laws and processes, simply follow the evidence to the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old.

What justification do you have for assuming the law of gravity (for instance) has changed so significantly in 6,000 years as to now appear to give an 'erroneous' measurement of billions of years? And not only gravity, but many other laws and processes (radioactive decay being another) also changing dramatically?

The only likely justification I can see is that God got a bit confused: he created the land and seas first, then the grass, herbs and fruit trees - and then only after that did he remember to put a couple of lights in the sky.

Maybe he messed with time as well, so that it only appears that Genesis is out of order.

[alexxcJRO]

Now if we assume that we can develop models that lead to the earth being billions of years old.

But why assume that? why is that assumption any better than assuming the Bible tells the truth?

If we assume the Bible is a meaningful revealed record of the past then we can easily work out that the earth was created about six thousands years ago and the creation took say, six days.

That explanation is not at odds with anything we can observe today, unless we assume uniformitarianism, which of course in this exercise we have not assumed.

In other words the 6 day creation does not conflict with any observations, it conflicts only with the assumption of uniformitarianism.

Again paddling nonsense that has been already been debunked.
YEC is impossible considering the evidence.

1.
Sir all those methods of dating support each other.
We have both biological processes, geological processes, magnetic processes and radioactive decay processes.
We have
->accumulation of tree rings(biological systems);

->accumulation of lead in zircon deposits through uranium radioactive decay;
accumulation of argon in rock minerals through potassium radioactive decay;
accumulation of damaged zones, or tracks, created in crystals during 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)

->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)

->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)

Q: Are you telling me that the laws of the universe coincidently changed in such a way and that the accumulation of all the above coincidently changed in such a way that they support each other showing a false answer: that the earth is young? Really?:confused2:

Q: Who can believe such nonsense?
Only the ignorant simpleton maybe.

2.
From our current measurements of the top and Higgs masses, it seems that our Universe is metastable.
These laws are always Immutable and valid in all tested situations.
This is also supported by deep theoretical, mathematical arguments like in case of the energy and momentum conservation based on the Noether’s Theorem.
In a study some scientists showed the laws of nature did not changed over a period of 14 year using atomic clocks. They concluded the laws of physics certainly did not change over fourteen-year period in our solar system.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... er-change/
When we observe the universe(light from close and distant objects)it looks consistent everywhere and across the 13.8 billion years.

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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #102]

This wins the strawman of the month award! Jose provides an example of how fossil fuel companies use old earth models to find their product to illustrate why old earth models work, and you've twisted that to suggest he is claiming that climate change due to fossil fuel use is useful and then criticizing him for having that stance! Did you really expect anyone would buy such blatant strawmanning?

And why would any god being create a planet like Earth some 6000 years ago and "make it appear old"? Who/what does that benefit? I realize you can attribute virtually anythng to a god being and not be required to have any rationale for it (god does what god does), but seriously ... what other reason would this have been done other than to fool humans for some reason? It is such a silly argument any way you look at it.

The study of microbiology or the organisms around petroleum sources does not invalidate 6-day creation. In fact it supports 6-day creation. Take for example:

"One extant group that produces "nannofossils" is the Coccolithophorans, planktonic golden-brown algae that are very abundant in the world's oceans. The calcareous plates accumulate on the ocean floor, become buried beneath later layers, and are preserved as nannofossils. Some chalks, such as those comprising the White Cliffs of Dover, are composed almost entirely of nannofossils." From fly's article.

The White Cliffs of Dover this formation extends all over the world.

"Chalk formations are found in many places in Europe, including England, France and Northern Ireland, and even extend into the Middle East as far as Kazakhstan. Extensive chalk beds are also found throughout North America, including the states of Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Kansas."

And they have a very high purity and they have evidence of animals buried alive. If they accumulated over millions of years how could this layer of chalk be so pure and bury animals alive?

No, I think Immanuel Kant had it right when he said for a person to be an atheist they must let go of reality and believe in a universe in which events are not caused.

[Clownboat]

And why would any god being create a planet like Earth some 6000 years ago and "make it appear old"? Who/what does that benefit?

Not to mention billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, black holes, gamma rays, quasars, etc., all totally irrelevant to a tiny cohort of people sprawled across a tiny planet, largely inhospitable to human habitation, learning a few lessons that may ultimately help them get into heaven.

I can just imagine a god creating all this, then finally getting to humans on earth to then say, "don't masterbait"!
Makes sense.

[Clownboat]

The study of microbiology or the organisms around petroleum sources does not invalidate 6-day creation.

Holy cow! Now you too!
Jose provided an example as to how fossil fuel companies use old earth models that work to find their product.

Why take the time to try to distract when you can just stick your head in the sand, plug your ears and yell la la la la la. Just as effective and less typing.

And they have a very high purity and they have evidence of animals buried alive. If they accumulated over millions of years how could this layer of chalk be so pure and bury animals alive?

No idea as you forgot to provide examples.

No, I think Immanuel Kant had it right when he said for a person to be an atheist they must let go of reality and believe in a universe in which events are not caused.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #102]

This wins the strawman of the month award! Jose provides an example of how fossil fuel companies use old earth models to find their product to illustrate why old earth models work, and you've twisted that to suggest he is claiming that climate change due to fossil fuel use is useful and then criticizing him for having that stance! Did you really expect anyone would buy such blatant strawmanning?

And why would any god being create a planet like Earth some 6000 years ago and "make it appear old"? Who/what does that benefit? I realize you can attribute virtually anythng to a god being and not be required to have any rationale for it (god does what god does), but seriously ... what other reason would this have been done other than to fool humans for some reason? It is such a silly argument any way you look at it.

The study of microbiology or the organisms around petroleum sources does not invalidate 6-day creation. In fact it supports 6-day creation. Take for example:

"One extant group that produces "nannofossils" is the Coccolithophorans, planktonic golden-brown algae that are very abundant in the world's oceans. The calcareous plates accumulate on the ocean floor, become buried beneath later layers, and are preserved as nannofossils. Some chalks, such as those comprising the White Cliffs of Dover, are composed almost entirely of nannofossils." From fly's article.

The White Cliffs of Dover this formation extends all over the world.

"Chalk formations are found in many places in Europe, including England, France and Northern Ireland, and even extend into the Middle East as far as Kazakhstan. Extensive chalk beds are also found throughout North America, including the states of Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Kansas."

And they have a very high purity and they have evidence of animals buried alive. If they accumulated over millions of years how could this layer of chalk be so pure and bury animals alive?

No, I think Immanuel Kant had it right when he said for a person to be an atheist they must let go of reality and believe in a universe in which events are not caused.

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?

LOL.....this is why I rarely debate young-earth creationism any more. It's just too ridiculous to argue over.