You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
These debates are always pointless. There is always some proponent of metaphysics; a convenient method of inventing any being you want, ascribing any attributes to that being you want, then using those attributes to "establish" yet another attribute ultimately to build a narrative unsupported by any actual facts or evidence that an eternal deity not only exists but created the universe. Then, after declaring this made-up-out-of-whole-cloth narrative immune to criticism or refutation; the theist demands objective empirical evidence to support the theory of a self-extant universe. There just isn't any point in debating someone who refuses to play by the same rules.
The argument is premised on injecting a supernatural element which complicates an already explainable natural event. It is intellectually equivalent to saying God (even though he vehemently denies this) created the Universe with the appearance of age but was actually created in the 6,000-8,000 year timeframe. Is this possible? Sure. But only if God exists, which in turn begs some other pointed questions. Is it something we can determine given the evidence at our disposal? Absolutely not. Is there a natural explanation that requires no supernatural injection? Yes.
More specifically the claim usually runs something like: One day corresponds to the creation of the galactic disk (of the Milky Way) some 15-16 billion years ago, day two corresponds to the appearance of water on Earth some 3-7 billion years ago, day three corresponds to atmospheric development some 1.5-3 billion years ago, day four is the appearance of multicellular organisms 750 mya-1.5 billion years ago, day five is that interlude to the first extinction 250mya-700mya, day six is that extinction to humans some 250mya-some biblically specific number like 6,000 when modern humans are supposed to have appeared (this is wrong), and of course day seven the day of rest. This of course is measured from the "wave frequency of the cosmic microwave background radiation"
What are the problems with this? Primarily that it is unfalsifiable and completely unnecessary injection meant to contort Genesis into scientific accuracy. More specific problems revolve around glaring inconsistencies with the source material (Genesis) and his theory which I'd have to dig up his book again to expound upon. Though there are quite a few rather detailed reviews and essays circling around that have done a better job of debunking those claims than I probably could.
I used to work with somebody, she was really nice, and she raised her son in very sheltered, religious environment. He was home schooled, she took him to the Creation Museum, and he was in the Boy Scouts. Other than Boy Scouts and church, they lived on a farm and he didn't know many other people.
I honestly felt kind of sad for him. I don't think it's a very good thing to raise a child that sheltered. At some point, he has to go out in the world and he isn't going to know how to handle situations.
I'm glad I was raised in a city and grew up with a lot of diversity. it takes a lot to shock me, and I am hardly naive.
I see gay people making out in public, and it's no big deal. I've met people who think they're vampires, no big deal. I've seen people do drugs, sell drugs, and carry illegal firearms on their person. And I am not a **** up or a druggie. I just can't imagine how kid like him would handle those situations once turned lose on the world.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK