Creationist Scientist's page

[ArmenianJohn]

SixDay Science

Anyone ever see this site? Interesting person who is one of the ones running it, she is a former atheist who has a PhD in Astrophysics and she became a Christian. She considers it her ministry to minister and witness to those who have a scientific background (and atheistic background) by sharing her knowledge, thoughts, and experiences with them regarding atheism, science, and Christianity.

Anyway, thought some of you might like this, so enjoy!

 

[St_Worm2]

Since the SixDay Science site is ~not~ YEC, perhaps this would have been a more appropriate post on the TE board?

FAQs

 

[ArmenianJohn]

It's a creationist site, not "young earth" but still creationist. The heading of this forum is "Creationism". I think I posted in the appropriate forum. They focus on the creation account in the Bible being literally true and in accord with science. They don't speak much (if at all) about evolution. The woman is an astrophysicist. Why are you mad?

 

[☦Marius☦]

Why are you mad?

-

 

[St_Worm2]

It's a creationist site, not "young earth" but still creationist. The heading of this forum is "Creationism". I think I posted in the appropriate forum. They focus on the creation account in the Bible being literally true and in accord with science. They don't speak much (if at all) about evolution. The woman is an astrophysicist. Why are you mad?

Why am I mad? I'm not (what did I say in my post above that made you think that?)

Perhaps my understanding of the purpose of the two boards from the SoP's instructions is incorrect however, because it appears (to me anyway) that one board, Creationism, is for discussions that concern a literal 6 Day Creation (as opposed to the TE board which, of course, does not).

From the SoP: Creation Science: The interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

Again though, it could be a misunderstanding on my part.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Why am I mad? I'm not (what did I say in my post above that made you think that?)

Because of the way you wrote "~not~" with the squiggly lines (tildes?) - seems you were very emphatic and aggressive in how you wrote that. Wouldn't just the word "not" have sufficed? (I would have understood it)

Perhaps my understanding of the purpose of the two boards from the SoP's instructions is incorrect however, because it appears (to me anyway) that one board, Creationism, is for discussions that concern a literal 6 Day Creation (as opposed to the TE board which, of course, does not).

From the SoP: Creation Science: The interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

Again though, it could be a misunderstanding on my part.

Well if you reference the site I linked to you'll see that it does believe in a "literal 6-day creation" of the earth. It goes on to explain that a literal day prior to the creation of our current idea of "time" can be "longer" and it explains this using theory of relativity to explain how time can be stretched (I'm not doing a great job explaining, that's why you should check the site, but it does say it's a literal 6-day creation although the earth is not young).

I mean, the site is literally called "six day science" - wouldn't that have been clear enough?

I'm looking at the SoP you've posted and don't see how this would be disqualified.

Anyway, I'll leave it for the people who run the forums to decide, I don't want to argue it further - I'm pretty disappointed that I tried to share a site and the biggest responses I've gotten were criticism on a meta level. I honestly thought some people would find the site interesting but it looks like I've somehow managed to ruffle feathers instead. My apologies, I'll think thrice before posting further in these forums.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

-

???

 

[St_Worm2]

Because of the way you wrote "~not~" with the squiggly lines (tildes?) - seems you were very emphatic and aggressive in how you wrote that. Wouldn't just the word "not" have sufficed? (I would have understood it)

I apologize for the misunderstanding and I appreciate you letting me know why. I really didn't mean anything by it, but you're right, it could have been easily misunderstood.

Well if you reference the site I linked to you'll see that it does believe in a "literal 6-day creation" of the earth. It goes on to explain that a literal day prior to the creation of our current idea of "time" can be "longer" and it explains this using theory of relativity to explain how time can be stretched (I'm not doing a great job explaining, that's why you should check the site, but it does say it's a literal 6-day creation although the earth is not young).

I mean, the site is literally called "six day science" - wouldn't that have been clear enough?

I'm looking at the SoP you've posted and don't see how this would be disqualified.

Anyway, I'll leave it for the people who run the forums to decide, I don't want to argue it further - I'm pretty disappointed that I tried to share a site and the biggest responses I've gotten were criticism on a meta level. I honestly thought some people would find the site interesting but it looks like I've somehow managed to ruffle feathers instead. My apologies, I'll think thrice before posting further in these forums.

A literal day is 24 hours. Neither Day Age, nor Gap Theory, nor TE hold to the literal 24 hour day Creation model (only YEC does that), which the Hebrew (יׄום [yom]), and repetitive statements like, "and there was evening and there was morning, one day", at least seem to indicate.

From the SoP: Creation Science: The interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.​

So the question, for me anyway, remains. I'll ask a mod or an administrator.

--David
p.s. - I agree that her site, SixDay Creation, is interesting, just FYI.