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.

[Clownboat]

Spam links? There are volumes written about tectonic plates and continental drift. Wikipedia is a convenient source for summary articles, with links at the bottom of the articles to other references and sources. If you think all of this is spam that pretty much speaks for itself (ie. you either don't understand any of it, and/or have no interest in learning about it).

You can't spam links and expect people to do a reading assignment. Did I spam the bible and other books without citing a particular point? No. So you need to make a point from your links and then discuss/defend it rather than offer huge reading lists. I thought I mentioned I knew that it was faith based? All of it. So why would I care about religious doctrines? Make a point and use links as support.

And yet another baseless claim with no support.

If it was baseless you could point out something that did not fit. We wait.

You've been presented with lots of actual science and external links, but evidently all you can do is ignore it and repeat that no one is presenting any science or defending it, when it is obvious that is exactly what many of us are doing.

We are not here to devout our lives to any book or spam list you care to post, as if it helped you.
You need to make a point and use a link as support, so we can check. For example, if you said we see the continents move at a certain observed rate, we could look at that. I would ask how long we have observed this rate. I would ask if most of the move may have been fast and could what we see today be a residual movement. Or maybe I would ask if you could prove that this rate always was the same in the past...etc. You make a point and I cross examine you. That's how it works, not spamming reading lists! (that I know to be wholly belief based anyhow)

Can you actually rebutt any of the science that has been presented?

I wait for you to present some. Make a point. Posting belief based spam is not something you should expect anyone to rebut.

Or are you here only to complain about science because it destroys your creation beliefs?

Don't flatter yourself. The belief set of so called science does not even cause me to bat an eye, let alone destroy anything.

Learning about how the world works takes time and a lot of effort.
For anyone that doesn't want to take the time or effort (reading supplied links that evidence claims being made), pick a religion to supply answers and you are done.

I get it, there is only so much time in the day.
Why take the time to learn about evolution or plate techtonics for example when you (generic 'you') have convinced yourself that you already know the answers? The hard work begins when we say, "I don't know".

[Clownboat]

The ideas of 1) a primitive man and 2) an invention of the concept of God at that "primitive" stage, are two completely opposite ideas.

You are wrong.
Primitive man is not an idea.
That men invented all the god concepts throughout all of history is an idea supported by evidence. In this case, I submit human psychology and living in an environment where imagining a preditor in the bush can save your life. From that thought, inventing gods to supply us with answers to unknowable questions is a small step.

As to why we developed this sense of agency:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ble-beings
Why do people believe in invisible beings?
We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.

The idea of a Creator God and invisible beings is too complex to have come from the mind of a semi-animal,

I'm talking about humans and you pretend we are talking about semi-animals. Whatever helps you to stick your head in the sand I suppose.

How do you go about reading an article about humans to pretending you just read an article about semi-animals? I know one way, and that would be to not read the info.

It must have arisen in the first place from direct communication at some point in the past, and then passed down from one generation to another.

You obviously didn't think this one through or else you would realize all the gods arose from some direct communication. Did all the gods communicate directly to humans?

Here is a list of some god concepts. Am I really to believe that all of them arose due to direct communication? Your words are hard to take seriously.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... _goddesses

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #342]

You wrote:

That men invented all the god concepts throughout all of history is an idea supported by evidence.

Which means there is the question of how one interprets that evidence surely?

[Eloi]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #4] I know magical thinking is common in humans, but in totally homo-sapiens, as you call it. The point is:

Where did they take the concept from, from what reference, if they had just stopped being animals (according to the evolutionists)? Do you think a baby can invent the idea of a Creator? Do you think any animal can create such a concept?

The Bible says that God, the Creator, had direct communication with the first couple and with some specific humans. That is in the Bible, but many modern persons claim to have communication with spirits, and the history is full of similar examples and certain spiritual experiences ... not that they are all reliable, but surely some will have been based on realities (this is a diferent topic).

[dad1]

Oh woe is me, them mean ol scientists reject my claims, and here I have me an utterer.
[/quote] Why blame them if they would rather live in the dark and make stuff up?

I'm fraid if I do say it again, everyone'll know I was picking on ya to begin with.

King's English?

I'll pretend you're intelligent.

Thanks, I'll pretend you could tell, or that it mattered.

[dad1]

Ya know what, I was gonna just keep poking fun at your answers, but it's abundantly clear you're incapable of showing you speak truth, if not entirely incapable of speaking it.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

Does that mean you can't offer science that addresses the 6 day creation, and do not care to admit there is none, since science is unable to deal with anything in reality that is spiritual in nature?

[dad1]

If you care to understand more on it:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ble-beings
Why do people believe in invisible beings?
We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on.

So you think you are closely related to a flatworm, why? Thanks for pointing out that some psychology today is so far gone that it deals in fable based mind picking.

All evolution was happened to created creatures, and the evolving and adapting that went on in the distant past (if we believe Scripture) was at a very very fast rate compared with what is observed today. There is no science that shows creation of life was due to the ability God gave living creatures to adapt and change.

[dad1]

Learning about how the world works takes time and a lot of effort.

I guess that is why origin sciences decided to make stuff up then, it's quicker?

For anyone that doesn't want to take the time or effort (reading supplied links that evidence claims being made), pick a religion to supply answers and you are done.

If I post thousands or even several faith based links will you read them? If not why think others would read your list? Do you think there is anything in almost any list spammed here that I might not be familiar with and defeated many times in the past? This is why you need to offer a point on topic and use links as support, not diversionary reading assignments.

I get it, there is only so much time in the day.
Why take the time to learn about evolution or plate techtonics for example when you (generic 'you') have convinced yourself that you already know the answers? The hard work begins when we say, "I don't know".

Do you know about that theory? Is there some point from it that you think you can discuss and post that relates to what is being talked about here? Is there anything from that theory that you think proves that it all happened over great time rather than, say, after the flood while Noah and many others were still alive? How do you think the animals and religions, for example got all around the earth on Islands and etc etc?

[JoeyKnothead]

Oh woe is me, them mean ol scientists reject my claims, and here I have me an utterer.

Why blame them if they would rather live in the dark and make stuff up?

Does your god prefer you to insult the integrity of others instead of just showing the OP claims're truth?

I'm fraid if I do say it again, everyone'll know I was picking on ya to begin with.

King's English?

Pope's Catholic?

I'll pretend you're intelligent.

Thanks, I'll pretend you could tell, or that it mattered.

You'd fare much better at the pretending than you do at the putting truth to your challenged claims.

[JoeyKnothead]

Ya know what, I was gonna just keep poking fun at your answers, but it's abundantly clear you're incapable of showing you speak truth, if not entirely incapable of speaking it.

The liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

Does that mean you can't offer science that addresses the 6 day creation...

I make no claims about how the earth came about, so bear me no responsibility to support those claims I ain't made.

and do not care to admit there is none, since science is unable to deal with anything in reality that is spiritual in nature?

Sounds like a problem for the claimant.