Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Silent Hunter]

We aren't agreeing, that you think we are is testament to your stupidity.

Since MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED, what need is there for a "cause" to create it, eternally existent or otherwise?

I see you're still having a difficult time coming to grips with what constitutes a logical fallacy. You can be stupid-on-steroids, or a moron, or an imbecile, or mentally deficient and still be a "sweetie-pie".

6days, just answer the question you've avoided three times so far...

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

SH, I believe I've already addressed this issue you are having.

If something creates something, then it inherently cannot be subject to that which it created, nor can it be bound by it.

If God (because let's be honest, we're talking about the God of the Bible here) created a universe, He is therefore inherently NOT subject to the laws of that universe, but outside of them.

He is "supernatural." Literally "beyond nature."

The first law of thermodynamics, a "natural" law, does not apply to a "supernatural" Being.

JR, I believe I've already addressed this issue you are having.

Isn't it convenient how creationists isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence? - Post 233

So EITHER:

"Goddidit." In other words, God (a "supernatural" Being) created the natural universe we live in.

OR

You have to logically explain how the universe has always existed without violating any of the known physical laws.

OR

You have to logically explain how the universe created itself without violating any of the known physical laws.

OR

You have to present a logical fourth possible method of how the universe could have come into existence, that does not include the other three (which I assert is not possible), without violating any of the known physical laws.

Go on, I'm waiting.

:idunno:

There are many hypotheses available to answer your questions, most of which are logical and congruent with physical "laws". Your problem is that, "I don't know", is not a phrase with which you are comfortable. Just because something is presently unknown, or even may never be known, doesn't mean, "Goddidit!!!", by default. You might as well believe the source of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!", since saying, "I don't know", is beyond your ability.

Oh, and the parts I highlighted in yellow text in your post, I assert that you cannot explain the existence of the universe WITHOUT violating any known law of physics EXCEPT by "SH's-personal-preferred deity-did-it." (AKA multiverse or some other external-to-the-universe source, otherwise known as more complexity to explain this complex universe).

You need to continue your study on logical fallacies. I suggest your next study begin with, Special Pleading.

 

[Silent Hunter]

... MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)...

Matter was created. Matter did not exist before it was created.

So, do you disagree with the First Law of Thermodynamics?

In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.
~Rudolf Clausius in 1850​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.
~Rudolf Clausius​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

When energy flows from one system or part of a system to another otherwise than by the performance of mechanical work, the energy so transferred is called heat.
~George H. Bryan in 1907​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

For a closed system, in any arbitrary process of interest that takes it from an initial to a final state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, the change of internal energy is the same as that for a reference adiabatic work process that links those two states. This is so regardless of the path of the process of interest, and regardless of whether it is an adiabatic or a non-adiabatic process. The reference adiabatic work process may be chosen arbitrarily from amongst the class of all such processes.​

Nothing I said contradicts that statement.

So, what part of the properties of heat transfer in a closed system do you think is violated by the fact that matter was created?

I'm an engineer and it is more than a little obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Where did you get your education in thermodynamics, a philosophy class?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm an engineer and it is more than a little obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Where did you get your education in thermodynamics, a philosophy class?

I don't believe you are an engineer since you don't seem to know a thing about the first law of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics, or the law of conservation of energy. The change in a system’s internal energy is equal to the difference between heat added to the system from its surroundings and work done by the system on its surroundings.
https://www.britannica.com/science/thermodynamics
​

Exactly what do you think was violated in the relationship between heat and work by God creating matter?

Thermo - heat
Dynamics - work

 

[Silent Hunter]

I'm an engineer and it is more than a little obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Where did you get your education in thermodynamics, a philosophy class?

I don't believe you are an engineer since you don't seem to know a thing about the first law of thermodynamics.

Then you would be wrong... again.

The first law of thermodynamics, or the law of conservation of energy. The change in a system’s internal energy is equal to the difference between heat added to the system from its surroundings and work done by the system on its surroundings.
https://www.britannica.com/science/thermodynamics

Well, that's the simple definition but there is more to it than that. Is the system open or closed?

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another (matter to energy, or energy to matter), but can be neither created nor destroyed.

Exactly what do you think was violated in the relationship between heat and work by God creating matter?

Well, there is that pesky, energy/matter "... can be neither created or destroyed..." restriction :chuckle:.

Have you ever in your entire misguided life heard of the equation, E = mc², where, E = energy, m = mass, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum? The equation, E = mc² is also known as the "mass-energy equivalence".

If we assume E = "total energy of the Universe" (It is debatable if the "Universe" is a closed system, cosmology hasn't fully answered that question yet.), then the equation can be rearranged to, m = E/c².

In words, the total amount of MASS in the Universe (for the sake of convenience we will assume the Universe is a closed system) = the total energy of the Universe divided by the speed of light squared.

If the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed then neither can the total amount of mass since mass and energy are the same thing.

If A = B, then B = A.

If you actually knew anything about physics/thermodynamics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well, that's the simple definition but there is more to it than that. Is the system open or closed?

(It is debatable if the "Universe" is a closed system, cosmology hasn't fully answered that question yet.)

God is outside the system, so anything He does is treated as happening in an open system.
We do not have the ability to do anything outside of the system, so everything we experience is treated as happening in a closed system.

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another (matter to energy, or energy to matter), but can be neither created nor destroyed.

The part highlighted is an extrapolation of the first law of thermodynamics, but cannot be supported as a law the way the relationship between heat and work can be supported.
You could go so far as to claim that the concept that "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed" is science fiction.

Well, there is that pesky, energy/matter "... can be neither created or destroyed..." restriction :chuckle:.

Yes, science fiction is fun.

Have you ever in your entire misguided life heard of the equation, E = mc2, where, E = energy, m = mass, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum? The equation, E = mc2 is also known as the "mass-energy equivalence".

If we assume E = "total energy of the Universe", then the equation can be rearranged to, m = E/c2.

In words, the total amount of MASS in the Universe (for the sake of convenience we will assume the Universe is a closed system) = the total energy of the Universe divided by the speed of light squared.

If the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed then neither can the total amount of mass since mass and energy are the same thing.

If A = B, then B = A.

If you actually knew anything about physics/thermodynamics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you.

Yes, I have heard about E = mc2, but it has nothing to do with true thermodynamics (the relationship between heat and work), it has to do with Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.
Claiming that the theory of Special Relativity is the first law of thermodynamics moves it from being a theory to being a law without the rigors of proof needed to establish a law of science.
That is bad science, but makes great science fiction.

Are there any other pieces of science fiction that you are basing your argument on?

 

[6days]

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

You are the one who keeps trying to introduce the God of the Bible into the conversation. What I said is "we are agreeing that the cause of everything is something which exists eternally." You seem to fear God since you keep inserting Him into our conversation.

We both agree that the universe had a beginning, so we agree the cause pre-existed... the cause was something which existed eternally.

Correct?

People who don't collect stamps, call stamp collecters "stupid" and "morons". Can we conclude from your argument that you are religious?

You're not making any sense.

...Not to you, but likely to all others. You equated non stamp collectors with atheists... as stamp collectors are to religion.

So... let's go with that analogy...

* non stamp collectors don't have conferences on the topic.
- Atheists do have conferences and often monthly meetings about atheism.

*People who don't collect stamps, don't call stamp collecters names.
- Evolutionists, like yourself today, do call non-evolutionists names.

* people who don't collect stamps don't proselytize
- Atheists DO proselytize.

* There are no books and magazines about not collecting stamps.
- there are books and magazines about atheism.

* Non stamp collectors don't go on stamp collecting forums.
- Atheists are active on religious forums and even have their own atheist forums.

So, using your analogy.... Silent Hunter is religious! You are not at all like non-stamp collectors.

Have you ever in your entire misguided life heard of the equation, E = mc2, where, E = energy, m = mass, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum? The equation, E = mc2 is also known as the "mass-energy equivalence".

Sorry Hunter, but Einstein's theory of relativity does not help with you attempt at deception. I suspect you understand the theory does not say 'matter can't be created'. What you first stated before heading down this bunny trail was closer to correct, when you said "Obviously the "first law" says matter has existed forever, in one form or another".

We both believe that the universe began to exist and that there is a cause which existed eternally.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, that's the simple definition but there is more to it than that. Is the system open or closed?

<GO conveniently omits> The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems.

If we assume E = "total energy of the Universe" (It is debatable if the "Universe" is a closed system, cosmology hasn't fully answered that question yet.), then the equation can be rearranged to, m = E/c².

God is outside the system, so anything He does is treated as happening in an open system.

We do not have the ability to do anything outside of the system, so everything we experience is treated as happening in a closed system.

Isn't it convenient how creationists isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence? Perhaps you've heard of ”Special Pleading”; no?

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another (matter to energy, or energy to matter), but can be neither created nor destroyed.

The part highlighted is an extrapolation of the first law of thermodynamics, but cannot be supported as a law the way the relationship between heat and work can be supported.

Well, sure it's an extrapolation (consequence) of the First Law of Thermodynamics (FLoT}, just like trigonometric functions can be manipulated to extrapolate other trigonometric functions or the energy - matter equivalence of E=mc² to m = E/c². Please explain in detail, using your deep knowledge of philosophy, er, thermodynamics, what's not true about it?

You could go so far as to claim that the concept that "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed" is science fiction.

No, science fiction is claiming matter and energy can be created or destroyed in violation of the FLoT by Special Pleading your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity into existence.

Fact or Fiction?: Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed

The conservation of energy is an absolute law, and yet it seems to fly in the face of things we observe every day. Sparks create a fire, which generates heat—manifest energy that wasn’t there before. A battery produces power. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion. Each of these situations, however, is simply a case of energy changing form. Even the seemingly paradoxical dark energy causing the universe’s expansion to accelerate, we will see, obeys this rule. The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing. Potential and kinetic energy are two of the most basic forms, familiar from high school physics class: Gravitational potential is the stored energy of a boulder pushed up a hill, poised to roll down. Kinetic energy is the energy of its motion when it starts rolling. The sum of these is called mechanical energy. The heat in a hot object is the mechanical energy of its atoms and molecules in motion. In the 19th century physicists realized that the heat produced by a moving machine was the machine’s gross mechanical energy converted into the microscopic mechanical energy of atoms. Chemical energy is another form of potential energy stored in molecular chemical bonds. It is this energy, stockpiled in your bodily cells, that allows you to run and jump. Other forms of energy include electromagnetic energy, or light, and nuclear energy—the potential energy of the nuclear forces in atoms. There are many more. Even mass is a form of energy, as Albert Einstein’s famous E = mc2 showed. Fire is a conversion of chemical energy into thermal and electromagnetic energy via a chemical reaction that combines the molecules in fuel (wood, say) with oxygen from the air to create water and carbon dioxide. It releases energy in the form of heat and light. A battery converts chemical energy into electrical energy. A nuclear bomb converts nuclear energy into thermal, electromagnetic and kinetic energy. As scientists have better understood the forms of energy, they have revealed new ways for energy to convert from one form to another. When physicists first formulated quantum theory they realized that an electron in an atom can jump from one energy level to another, giving off or absorbing light. In 1924 Niels Bohr, Hans Kramers, and John Slater proposed that these quantum jumps temporarily violated energy conservation. According to the physicists, each quantum jump would liberate or absorb energy, and only on average would energy be conserved. Einstein objected fervently to the idea that quantum mechanics defied energy conservation. And it turns out he was right. After physicists refined quantum mechanics a few years later, scientists understood that although the energy of each electron might fluctuate in a probabilistic haze, the total energy of the electron and its radiation remained constant at every moment of the process. Energy was conserved. Modern cosmology has offered up new riddles in energy conservation. We now know that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate—propelled by something scientists call dark energy. This is thought to be the intrinsic energy per cubic centimeter of empty space. But if the universe is a closed system with a finite amount of energy, how can it spawn more empty space, which must contain more intrinsic energy, without creating additional energy? It turns out that in Einstein’s theory of general relativity, regions of space with positive energy actually push space outward. As space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created volume. So even the expansion of the universe is controlled by the law of energy conservation.

Well, there is that pesky, energy/matter "... can be neither created or destroyed..." restriction :chuckle:.

Yes, science fiction is fun.

Yeah, you should know . See above.

Have you ever in your entire misguided life heard of the equation, E = mc², where, E = energy, m = mass, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum? The equation, E = mc² is also known as the "mass-energy equivalence".

If we assume E = "total energy of the Universe" (It is debatable if the "Universe" is a closed system, cosmology hasn't fully answered that question yet.), then the equation can be rearranged to, m = E/c².

In words, the total amount of MASS in the Universe (for the sake of convenience we will assume the Universe is a closed system) = the total energy of the Universe divided by the speed of light squared.

If the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed then neither can the total amount of mass since mass and energy are the same thing.

If A = B, then B = A.

If you actually knew anything about physics/thermodynamics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you.

Yes, I have heard about E = mc2, but it has nothing to do with true thermodynamics (the relationship between heat and work), it has to do with Albert Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.

You’re stupid-on-steroids. There is significantly more to the FLoT than “the relationship between heat and work” and the energy – matter equivalence is an integral part of it. Where do you think the “heat” comes from… thin air?

Claiming that the theory of Special Relativity is the first law of thermodynamics moves it from being a theory to being a law without the rigors of proof needed to establish a law of science.

That is bad science, but makes great science fiction.

Where, exactly, did I claim Special Relativity IS the FLoT?

The mass - energy equivalence is a consequence of SR and directly applies to thermodynamic systems. Even someone as stupid as Stripe knows that (I'd hope).

Are there any other pieces of science fiction that you are basing your argument on?

Do you mean something akin to you special pleading for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity? No.

 

[Silent Hunter]

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

You are the one who keeps trying to introduce the God of the Bible into the conversation.

Huh? Do you even read my posts? I've done no such thing. If you want to associate "your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity" with the (in my opinion) demonic deity described in your favorite book that's your doing, NOT mine.

What I said is "we are agreeing that the cause of everything is something which exists eternally."

We aren't agreeing, that you think we are is testament to your stupidity.

Since MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED, what need is there for a "cause" to create it, eternally existent or otherwise?

You seem to fear God since you keep inserting Him into our conversation.

No I don't, that's your straw man.

We both agree that the universe had a beginning, so we agree the cause pre-existed... the cause was something which existed eternally.

Correct?

No.

The current understanding of cosmology suggests the Universe as it exists NOW had a beginning. What the Universe was like prior to its present state or what "caused" the present state of the Universe is unknown.

Creationists cannot stand the phrase, "I don't know", and would rather insert their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity in its place. 6days, you might as well believe the cause of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!"

Did you even bother to read my post #250 or is your record broken causing you to repeat yourself continuously?

People who don't collect stamps, call stamp collecters "stupid" and "morons". Can we conclude from your argument that you are religious?

You're not making any sense.

...Not to you, but likely to all others.

No, you're not making any sense to them either.

... if evolution is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby...

You equated non stamp collectors with atheists... as stamp collectors are to religion.

No I didn't... not even close... your straw man below not withstanding...

So... let's go with that analogy...

... you meant, "straw man", I believe but I'll play along with your red herring... just for fun.

* non stamp collectors don't have conferences on the topic.
- Atheists do have conferences and often monthly meetings about atheism.

I've never been to an "atheist conference" nor have I ever been to a "monthly meeting about atheism".

Strike ONE!

*People who don't collect stamps, don't call stamp collecters names.
- Evolutionists, like yourself today, do call non-evolutionists names.

Actually, no, creationist "arguments" are fatally flawed and the "arguments" are stupid-on-steroids. I simply associate the "argument" with the source.

Strike TWO!!

* people who don't collect stamps don't proselytize
- Atheists DO proselytize.

I suppose some do... I don't.

Strike THREE!!!

* There are no books and magazines about not collecting stamps.
- there are books and magazines about atheism.

Actually, there are many books about the failure of religion which are often about fundamentalist christianity in particular. I've never seen or heard of a book or magazine dedicated to atheism.

Strike FOUR!!!!

* Non stamp collectors don't go on stamp collecting forums.
- Atheists are active on religious forums and even have their own atheist forums.

This one is simply a pure non sequitur. I don't collect china, coins, stamps, or any of a number of "collectables" but have spent time in those types of forums. I even avoid this one for long stretches of time.

Strike FIVE!!!!!

So, using your analogy.... Silent Hunter is religious! You are not at all like non-stamp collectors.

EPIC fail, 6days... EPIC.

Have you ever in your entire misguided life heard of the equation, E = mc², where, E = energy, m = mass, and c = the speed of light in a vacuum? The equation, E = mc² is also known as the "mass-energy equivalence".

If we assume E = "total energy of the Universe" (It is debatable if the "Universe" is a closed system, cosmology hasn't fully answered that question yet.), then the equation can be rearranged to, m = E/c².

In words, the total amount of MASS in the Universe (for the sake of convenience we will assume the Universe is a closed system) = the total energy of the Universe divided by the speed of light squared.

If the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed then neither can the total amount of mass since mass and energy are the same thing.

If A = B, then B = A.

If you actually knew anything about physics this simple concept wouldn't need to be explained to you... again.

Sorry Hunter, but Einstein's theory of relativity does not help with you attempt at deception.

Deception? Your understanding of physics is indeed limited.

I suspect you understand the theory does not say 'matter can't be created'.

Of course I do, but leave it up to you to NOT get the point.

What you first stated before heading down this bunny trail was closer to correct, when you said "Obviously the "first law" says matter has existed forever, in one form or another".

The mass - energy equivalence ( E = mc²) is a consequence of SR and directly applies to thermodynamic systems, matter and energy are equivalent. Even someone as stupid as Stripe knows that (I'd hope).

We both believe that the universe began to exist and that there is a cause which existed eternally.

The current understanding of cosmology suggests the Universe as it exists NOW had a beginning. What the Universe was like prior to its present state or what "caused" the present state of the Universe is unknown.

Your problem is that, "I don't know", is not a phrase with which you are comfortable. Just because something is presently unknown, or even may never be known, doesn't mean, "Goddidit!!!", by default. You might as well believe the source of thunder and lightning is, "Goddidit!!!", since saying, "I don't know", is beyond your ability.

6days, you need not embarrass yourself further with your lack of ability to think logically, just answer the question you've avoided six times so far...

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?.

 

[iouae]

Since 95% of the universe is dark energy and dark matter, which both physicists and theologians alike no NOTHING about, and since the universe is ACCELERATING apart, implying that energy is being added CONTINUOUSLY to visible matter, then I predict the above discussion is going nowhere slowly, like the universe.

And speaking of open and closed systems is terminology only useful when there is no input from God or the supernatural. So to try to include or exclude God from your "closed system" is to make up a completely new set of laws, which have no meaning, since they cannot be replicated. God does not lend Himself to replication on demand.

But don't mind me, please carry on

 

[Silent Hunter]

And speaking of open and closed systems is terminology only useful when there is no input from God or the supernatural. So to try to include or exclude God from your "closed system" is to make up a completely new set of laws, which have no meaning, since they cannot be replicated.

Isn't it convenient how creationists isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence? Perhaps you've heard of ”Special Pleading”; no?

God does not lend Himself to replication on demand.

Things that don't exist often don't.

 

[iouae]

Isn't it convenient how creationists isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence? Perhaps you've heard of ”Special Pleading”; no?

Things that don't exist often don't.

Science sits with issues it cannot explain, such as where the energy and laws governing the Big Bang originated, ghost lineages or missing links in the fossil record, dark energy and dark matter, and why the universe is accelerating outwards, which implies an input of energy from somewhere.

Religious folks sit with issues they cannot explain, which include all of the above, and on top of this, they see all the above things which need explaining, through the filter of Genesis. And that Genesis filter is like adding a cataract to the eyes, because most religious folks misinterpret what Genesis ACTUALLY might be saying - which is that the universe could be 13.7 billion years old, and that God MIGHT have been creating and destroying biomes, over the last 500 million years of earth's history.

I believe religious folks in general who do not work with science on a daily basis, do not pay enough respect to science. Science is just another source of truth, when we sort out the good science (objective data) from bad science (speculative theory).

Likewise there is good theology which is a source of truth and light, and there is bad theology which is just like having cataracts covering one's eyes.

I believe one knows when one has good science and good theology, because when one does, the two agree with what the other is saying.

You mentioned special pleading. Yes, religious folks like to play that card.
But evolution has its own case of special pleading when it says "given enough time, anything can happen by chance" and then "enough time" is whatever time seems to be the time prescribed by the geologic column. I personally don't believe that there was "enough time" for say the Cambrian explosion, the dinosaur explosion, the mammal explosion of the Cenozoic era etc. Nor even, "enough time" to explain the sudden rise of Homo sapiens. But that is just my gut feel, which is not true science.

 

[George Affleck]

What need is there for your-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity hypothesis if, by the first law of thermodynamics, MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED (or destroyed)?

Because God made the law to work perfectly every time so that atheists would look stupid.

Can you account for where the law came from?

 

[George Affleck]

The word "day" in Genesis means an ordinary, 24 hour day.

Every bit of exegetical information that can be gathered from within Genesis itself tells us that that is the meaning. God went to a lot of trouble, even including the words morning and evening, so we would not make a mistake.
In the whole Old Testament, not including the creation account, when the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) appears with “evening” or “morning” or is modified by a number, it always means a 24-hour day.
In addition, every major doctrine of Christianity is weakened (some nullified) by whether or not the days are literal.
Jesus and Paul knew this and they both supported a literal understanding of creation.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Isn't it convenient how creationists isolate and immunize their-personal-preferred-concept-of-deity from examination? Which begs the question, how can creationists even make the claim, "Mydeitydidit!!!", without even the slightest evidence of its existence? Perhaps you've heard of ”Special Pleading”; no?

Things that don't exist often don't.

Science sits with issues it cannot explain, such as where the energy and laws governing the Big Bang originated, ghost lineages or missing links in the fossil record, dark energy and dark matter, and why the universe is accelerating outwards, which implies an input of energy from somewhere.

There's quite a bit we still don't understand about many things but just because there are aspects of the life, the Universe, and everything we don't know or may never know doesn't mean, "ThedeityIspecialpleadedintoexistencedidit!!!", by default. You obviously have an inquisitive mind and might enjoy this interesting article... "Accelerating Universe" could be an illusion.

Religious folks sit with issues they cannot explain, which include all of the above, and on top of this, they see all the above things which need explaining, through the filter of Genesis. And that Genesis filter is like adding a cataract to the eyes, because most religious folks misinterpret what Genesis ACTUALLY might be saying - which is that the universe could be 13.7 billion years old, and that God MIGHT have been creating and destroying biomes, over the last 500 million years of earth's history.

Plausible... you could be right, who knows.

I believe religious folks in general who do not work with science on a daily basis, do not pay enough respect to science. Science is just another source of truth, when we sort out the good science (objective data) from bad science (speculative theory).

"Speculative theory" isn't bad science... it is where science begins, enter the Scientific Method.

Likewise there is good theology which is a source of truth and light, and there is bad theology which is just like having cataracts covering one's eyes.

I believe one knows when one has good science and good theology, because when one does, the two agree with what the other is saying.

I disagree in part. I don't see theology as having anything to do with science or vice-versa. Science I can use... theology, not so much.

You mentioned special pleading. Yes, religious folks like to play that card.
But evolution has its own case of special pleading when it says "given enough time, anything can happen by chance" and then "enough time" is whatever time seems to be the time prescribed by the geologic column. I personally don't believe that there was "enough time" for say the Cambrian explosion, the dinosaur explosion, the mammal explosion of the Cenozoic era etc. Nor even, "enough time" to explain the sudden rise of Homo sapiens. But that is just my gut feel, which is not true science.

You mentioned cards. Do you have a deck of "poker" cards? If so, shuffle them several times then lay them face up in a line. The probability of that exact line-up of cards is 52! (52 factorial = 1 x 2 x 3 x ... 50 x 51 x 52 = 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000) and you did it without even trying!

What you "don't believe" through your "gut feel(ing)", ignores science and is an "argument of personal incredulity".

 

[Stripe]

The probability of that exact line-up of cards is 52 factorial and you did it without even trying!

How mind-numbingly asinine Darwinists are.

If you find a sandcastle on the beach, we rule out randomness as a possibility. If we find the deck of cards in their correct order, we rule out randomness.

Your comments are akin to saying: "We have it, so it must have happened by chance."

 

[Stripe]

Shuffle them several times then lay them face up in a line. The probability of that exact line-up of cards is 52!.

Also, shuffling a deck will never result in the cards being returned to their correct order.

Not "very unlikely."

Never. Not even after 152! attempts.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Do you have a deck of "poker" cards? If so, shuffle them several times then lay them face up in a line. The probability of that exact line-up of cards is 52! (52 factorial = 1 x 2 x 3 x ... 50 x 51 x 52 = 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000) and you did it without even trying!

How mind-numbingly asinine Darwinists are.

Well, I know you are but what am I?

If you find a sandcastle on the beach, we rule out randomness as a possibility.

While it is certain the sandcastle didn't "self-assemble", it is a randomly built sandcastle on a random beach made of random particles of sand.

If we find the deck of cards in their correct order, we rule out randomness.

No, YOU (and other creationists) rule out random chance. However, unlike shuffling cards, evolution isn't as random as creationist would like everyone to believe.

Your comments are akin to saying: "We have it, so it must have happened by chance."

Your comments are akin to saying: "The odds are so incredible it couldn't have happened by chance, therefore, thedeityIspecialpleadedintoexistencedidit!!!"

Also, shuffling a deck will never result in the cards being returned to their correct order.

Not "very unlikely."

Never. Not even after 152! attempts.

You don't know much about statistics, do you?

In the U.S.A. there is a lottery game called "Powerball". The odds of winning are approximately 1 in 292 million (69 balls taken 5 at a time and 26 balls taken one at a time, if you want to figure out the exact odds), yet, through the miracle of chance, someone ALWAYS wins... always.

While the odds of shuffling a deck of cards until they are in any specific order are incredibly long, given enough creationists shuffling decks of card, just like "Powerball", while hard for creationists to comprehend, someone will eventually get it right.

 

[The Barbarian]

How mind-numbingly asinine Darwinists are.

So you look at some kind of order and are stunned to find that God is powerful enough to make a universe where order appears out of natural processes. Christians have always realized this. Creationists are scared of a God that powerful.

You've just found an arrow stuck in a tree and drawn a bulls-eye around it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some insight into the way nature adapts to physical forces:

 

[The Barbarian]

If anyone is interested in learning why order appears naturally, this would be a good start:

It requires some high school-level math, so Stipe won't get it, but it's pretty accessible to the average person.