Are the days of creation real or are they periods?

[St.Roymond]

@Bill_II

You might want to take a look at this and see why the Big Bang Theory counts as a scientific theory.

Note: This post was originally published on February 21, 2013. It is part of the series “Evolution Basics”, which is the most comprehensive resource on evolutionary science in our entire library, written specifically for those without advanced training in science. In this article, Dennis Venema addresses confusion over the scientific definition of the word “theory”, which fuels many misunderstandings about the science of evolution. For those who want an in-depth look at the building blocks of m…

This link exemplifies why I find the closing of threads after seven days to be extremely irritating: it essentially locks newcomers out of commenting!

It’s even more irritating than the silly “Consider replying to several posts at once” message that appears and blocks the preview of what I’m writing. That’s annoying because it assumes that throwing several unrelated items together is somehow an improvement over keeping each post to a single topic/aspect.

I liked the note for one thread; I forget which one: it said “This topic will close ten years after the last reply” – that conforms to how the best boards I’ve been on work; a thread (not a topic; the two are not the same!) stays open so newcomers can comment, which serves to keep a discussion all available in one thread and not scattered piecemeal in different threads.

For example in the linked thread I wanted to point out that while the stated relationship between “theory” and “hypothesis” may be instructive it is not actually correct since “thesis” does not equal “theory”. If you want to throw the three together, the relationship is actually rather linear: a hypothesis is an idea proposed in a way that makes it testable, a thesis is a statement of an idea along with a cohesive and coherent argument why it should be true, and a theory is the explanation that arises from testing a number of related theses and falsifying what could be falsified and thus establishing a pattern to which all the facts fit.
That’s a bit over simplified, but sufficient. OTOH in science the relationship between hypothesis and theory is in practice as stated since when writing up a hypothesis the thesis is part of that work because that’s where claims that can be measured are proposed.

Anyway, back to the regular fracas…

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@MikeBoll

I believe that what you insist are accurate and honest weights and measures are anything but. My assertion is that you are deceived into believing they are, when they’re clearly not.

Well I’m sorry Mikey, but what consists of accurate and honest weights and measures is not determined by what you believe, or by what anyone else believes for that matter. It is determined by specific rules—rules that, I hasten to add, have nothing whatsoever to do with “secularism” or “consensus paradigms,” but that have proven themselves by being applied repeatedly in situations where adhering to them means the difference between things working as intended and things going catastrophically wrong. Rules that are exactly the same whether you are a Christian or an atheist or anything else in between.

If scientific determinations of the age of the earth are not based on accurate and honest weights and measures as you assert, then you will be able to point to specific rules of accurate and honest weights and measures that they are breaking. If you are not able to point to specific rules that they are breaking, then your assertion is just that—an assertion, and an unjustified one at that.

@MikeBoll

James, does blatant censorship against those who don’t conform to a particular narrative really sound like accurate and honest weights and measures to you?

If the “particular narrative” is adherence to the rules of accurate and honest weights and measurements, then no it doesn’t.

First justify the young earth approach to measurement and demonstrate that it does obey the rules, then we can talk about whether they have any legitimate claims for discrimination or not.

Do you actually know what the rules of accurate and honest measurement are?

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@T_aquaticus

Given the evidence, it isn’t possible. The evidence directly contradicts a recent global flood.

The evidence is billions of dead things buried in sediments that were laid down very rapidly by water all over the world. A worldwide flood is exactly what the evidence supports.

Polystrate fossils are also very good evidence. It used to be that geologists avoided the word “flood” like the plague. Now floods are the common explanation for most huge fossil deposits - but it is always a local massive flooding event - here, there, and everywhere. Why not one single worldwide flood instead?

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@rsewell

Get back when YEC’s have a clue as to why the CMB even exists, let alone why it is close to isothermal.

My TV station goes off the air and I observe static, therefore Big Bang 14 billion years ago. Come on, man.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@MikeBoll

It used to be that geologists avoided the word “flood” like the plague.

You just made this up.

@MikeBoll

Now floods are the common explanation for most huge fossil deposits - but it is always a local massive flooding event - here, there, and everywhere.

Just in this past decade, there have been local massive flooding events in Japan, Pakistan, Germany, the United States and Canada, Brazil, Peru, Australia, China, just to name a few; you could say here, there, and everywhere. Were those Noah’s flood as well?

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@jammycakes

Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years or that evolution is a fact, MUST obey these verses. Any such challenge or doctrine of creation that does not obey these verses is not scientific, is not Biblical, and is not honest.

There is only one way to understand these words with honest weights and measures…

You are to work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE I created heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them in six days and rested on the seventh.

It is one thing for you to believe your faith-based doctrine that the world is 4.5 billion years old and evolution is a fact, and dismiss the Bible as flat out wrong. But it requires irrational mental gymnastics, not honest weights and measures, to attempt to reconcile the two blatantly contradictory accounts.

The long argument from incredulity with which you ended your post exposes you as living in a world that is far from reality. I wasn’t aware there were any intelligent people left on earth who still believe we actually travelled to and landed on the moon with this homeless tweaker shelter made from construction paper, aluminum foil, curtain rods, and Scotch tape. This baby withstood a 1 x 10 -11 torr vacuum and temperatures fluctuating between +392 and -328 degrees Fahrenheit!

As for chemtrails, I can tell the indoctrination is complete when you’ve been convinced to reject the evidence of your own eyes… especially when the people indoctrinating you are also telling you that they’ve been doing it since the Vietnam war!

Surely we all remember painting these kinds of clouds as children, right?

As for 9-11, airplane wings that can be destroyed by a bird do not cut through solid steel beams like a knife through warm butter, and fires don’t cause such buildings to collapse perfectly into their own footprints at freefall speed.

James, were you aware that the term “conspiracy theorist” was actually invented by the CIA after the Kennedy assassination, who then directed their agents in the mainstream media (research Operation Mockingbird) to use it often as a term of derision towards anyone speaking out against the official narrative?

We’ve been living through psyop after psyop for decades - made possible by gullible people who are all too happy to just believe and parrot whatever nonsensical crap they’re spoon fed by the ones running the psyops.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@jpm

Or perhaps Genesis is written that way as an example for man to follow, not as a ritual to be re-enacted.

A ritual to be re-enacted?

Perhaps the reason God told the Israelites to work six literal days and rest on the seventh because He created in six literal days and rested on the seventh is that He actually did do what He clearly told them He did.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Dale

Maybe they were analogous days or figurative days, like the workday in The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).

I don’t get it. Was the day in the parable not a literal day? Also, are there any scriptural reasons for us to not understand the days of creation as literal days? Or just secular ones?

@Dale

You are elevating science above the intent of scripture by insisting that the Bible has to be scientifically correct.

Not sure what the first part means, but I know that there isn’t any real science that prohibits the Biblical account of the age and shape of the world from being accurate.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MikeBoll

I don’t get it. Was the day in the parable not a literal day?

Was it a real day is the point. (You could not find it on a calendar.)

@MikeBoll

I know that there isn’t any real science that prohibits the Biblical account of the age and shape of the world from being accurate.

You are badly mistaken.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@Bill_II

@MikeBoll

Surely you don’t truly believe that scientific investigation is void of assumptions,

The assumptions don’t control the outcomes as the assumptions in Biblical interpretation do.

Of course they do.

@Bill_II

@MikeBoll

that “consensus” means there is no disagreement by other scientists,

Yes there are disagreements between scientists and sometimes those disagreements end up with new science.

Meaning the previous scientific consensus was wrong the entire time, right?

@Bill_II

@MikeBoll

that historical sciences can make predictions that can be empirically tested,

Depends on what you mean by “historical sciences.” Geology is certainly one historical science and yes it does make predictions that are tested all the time. Otherwise geologists wouldn’t never be able to find oil and gas.

It is one thing to observe an apple tree and “predict” that it will produce apples in a few months. It is another to observe an apple tree and conclude that it evolved over billions of years. Surely you see the difference, right?

@Bill_II

@MikeBoll

I tried to bring up the collapse of the Big Bang Idea (not a scientific theory by any stretch of the imagination) in my last thread,

You might want to take a look at this and see why the Big Bang Theory counts as a scientific theory.

One time unique events cannot be observed, repeated, or tested. If it is not subject to repeated testing and observation, it is not a part of empirical science.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@rsewell

That the Earth is a sphere has been known for over 2500 years. It is a fools errand to attempt to reason with someone that far out of date, and is that impervious to evidence, to discuss modern cosmology. Feel free to parody yourself. If it makes you feel better to state I am the one who is blind, fine.

I’m not impervious to evidence, but rather to your interpretation of the evidence. Big difference. By the way, how exactly was it known (i.e. a proven fact) 2500 years ago?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Do you believe the earth is flat? How about the moon?

Spherical Earth

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Apparently you do.

The Flat Earth Experience – Heaven Net

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@St.Roymond

Nope – they said those days were “divine days” because there weren’t any humans yet to measure them by human measurements.

Then they were mistaken, since a “day” - as conceptualized, created, and defined by God Himself in the Bible - has nothing to do with the existence of men, but is instead a single dark/light cycle (or the light portion of one such cycle). A day also doesn’t depend on the sun - which God didn’t create until 3 days after He created the first day. (There will also be days in New Jerusalem, but no sun.)

@St.Roymond

God ‘rested’ after six divine days, humans rest after six human days.

What governs a “divine day”? A different sun that rises and sets over the highest heaven?

But more importantly, why would they think that would God unequivocally equate the six days of creation with six literal earth days if their was a huge discrepancy between the two?

You are to work six days and rest on the seventh BECAUSE I created your world in six days an rested on the seventh.

There is absolutely no scriptural reason to assume that these six day periods are different. It’s clear that the rabbis you mentioned were adding their own inventions into the scriptures.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@St.Roymond

@MikeBoll

Your options are to either reject physical evidence or to reject the Bible as a literal historical account. I accept the Bible as a literal historical account without rejecting any physical evidence.

False dichotomy. The other option is to read the Bible as the ancient literature it is, starting by identifying what kind of literature each portion was meant to be by the writer, then to understand the culture and worldview of the writer, then coming to understand what the original audience would have understood that portion to mean.

The option you offer is the second option that Phil McCurdy offered, i.e., rejecting the Bible as a literal historical account.

By the way, if the quotes of God in scripture were actually said by God, then the worldview of the writer doesn’t come into play. If the Bible is just a compilation of men lying about things they claim God said to them, then let’s just trash the entire thing and move on.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@St.Roymond

This link exemplifies why I find the closing of threads after seven days to be extremely irritating: it essentially locks newcomers out of commenting!

It’s even more irritating than the silly “Consider replying to several posts at once” message that appears and blocks the preview of what I’m writing. That’s annoying because it assumes that throwing several unrelated items together is somehow an improvement over keeping each post to a single topic/aspect.

Good post. I’m also now being prohibited from posting more than 3 consecutive replies until somebody else posts something on the thread. I suspect that one must be new, because I’ve only seen it in the last week. But I only post here on the weekends when I can, and sometimes 20 comments to me came in over the previous week. Why shouldn’t I be able to reply to all 20 of them in a row without waiting for someone else to post something?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MikeBoll

I suspect that one must be new, because I’ve only seen it in the last week.

Wrong again, incorrectly making unwarranted presumptions about the evidence.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MikeBoll

rejecting the Bible as a literal historical account.

Was the parable of The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard a literal historical account? There are very good reasons for believing that Genesis 1 was not intended as a literal historical account, just as there are good reasons for believing that the parable was not intended to be understood as literal history.

@MikeBoll

I’m not impervious to evidence…

Your words belie you.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@jammycakes

@MikeBoll

James, does blatant censorship against those who don’t conform to a particular narrative really sound like accurate and honest weights and measures to you?

If the “particular narrative” is adherence to the rules of accurate and honest weights and measurements, then no it doesn’t.

Who made the rules? Who determines whether or not they are being broken in any particular instance?

@jammycakes

If scientific determinations of the age of the earth are not based on accurate and honest weights and measures as you assert, then you will be able to point to specific rules of accurate and honest weights and measures that they are breaking.

Did Halton Arp break the rules of the game with his infamous redshift observations?

Did Richard Sternberg break the rules of the game by publishing Stephen Meyer’s paper in a peer reviewed journal?

Did Mary Schweitzer break the rules of the game by identifying soft tissue in animals that were supposed to be 65 million years old?

See, all of these things (and many, MANY more) have caused upheaval among those who play your game, and the “rule-breakers” are swiftly dealt with. But did any of them really and truly break the rules?

If so, then your game is rigged, James. And if you can’t see that, then it must be true that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

But tell me about polystrate fossils. Does it break the rules of the game to accept them as bonafide scientific evidence that certain strata that were believed to have been laid down over millions of years weren’t? And if those strata (there are many examples) weren’t, is there really any valid reason to assume that any particular deposit took deep time to accumulate?

@jammycakes

Well I’m sorry Mikey, but what consists of accurate and honest weights and measures is not determined by what you believe…

Nor by what you believe. I stand by my assertion…

@MikeBoll

I believe that what you insist are accurate and honest weights and measures are anything but. My assertion is that you are deceived into believing they are, when they’re clearly not.

[MikeBoll (Michael D Boll)]

@St.Roymond

…a hypothesis is an idea proposed in a way that makes it testable, a thesis is a statement of an idea along with a cohesive and coherent argument why it should be true, and a theory is the explanation that arises from testing a number of related theses and falsifying what could be falsified and thus establishing a pattern to which all the facts fit.

And there you have it from one of your own.

Neither Big Bang nor Evolution can be tested and falsified. Even if true, they are one time historical events that are not subject to test, cannot be scrutinized via the scientific method, and are therefore not a part of empirical science.