Is the reconciliation acceptable?

[Alias]

And he presents various facts and figures from various scriptures and scholarly articles to support his argument.

I don't know what the 'scholarly articles' are or who wrote them, but if they're supported by 'scriptures', they lose any claim to scientific consideration.

So we can't merely neglect him

Yes, we can. It is unquestionably, unequivocally, terminally ridiculous.

[Sushan]

And he presents various facts and figures from various scriptures and scholarly articles to support his argument.

I don't know what the 'scholarly articles' are or who wrote them, but if they're supported by 'scriptures', they lose any claim to scientific consideration.

So we can't merely neglect him

Yes, we can. It is unquestionably, unequivocally, terminally ridiculous.

Well, I too have a similar idea regarding this concept. Most importantly this is not scientific, and we can give this some credit considering this as somewhat philosophical. I would like to neglect this outright, but there are many readers who accept and support these ideas. So I think it is worth subjecting this to logical argument, then pointing out the negative aspects, and disregarding the whole concept

[Alias]

Well, I too have a similar idea regarding this concept. Most importantly this is not scientific,

Worse than that: it is dishonest in pretending to be scientific.

and we can give this some credit considering this as somewhat philosophical.

In what way is it philosophical?

I would like to neglect this outright, but there are many readers who accept and support these ideas.

They're not my problem. If you're smart, you'll realize they're not your problem, either.

So I think it is worth subjecting this to logical argument, then pointing out the negative aspects, and disregarding the whole concept

Done.

[Sushan]

Well, I too have a similar idea regarding this concept. Most importantly this is not scientific,

Worse than that: it is dishonest in pretending to be scientific.

and we can give this some credit considering this as somewhat philosophical.

In what way is it philosophical?

I would like to neglect this outright, but there are many readers who accept and support these ideas.

They're not my problem. If you're smart, you'll realize they're not your problem, either.

So I think it is worth subjecting this to logical argument, then pointing out the negative aspects, and disregarding the whole concept

Done.

Google defines 'philosophical' as,

relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy. And that makes the discussions about this book philosophical (my opinion). Since it has no actual scientific proof, it is not scientific (we both agree on that).

[Alias]

[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.

Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.

[Sushan]

[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.

Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.

Actually he identifies himself as a scientist. And I do believe that he is trying to legitimize a myth.

Whether philosophy or apologetics, here the problem is that the author is being biased. He has begun this discussion being in the belief that the bible is true. So for us, who does not believe in each and every word in the bible, it is fair for his work to be seen as purely irrational blasphemy, which is neither scientific, nor philosophical.

[Alias]

[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.

Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.

Actually he identifies himself as a scientist.

He can:

He studied engineering physics at the University of British Columbia and in 1979 went to work for MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, a company that at that time specialized in hardware and software for satellite ground stations - wiki

but the science he studied and practices - howbeit from an executive position - unrelated to any of the sciences relevant to the subject on which he's writing books.

Whether philosophy or apologetics, here the problem is that the author is being biased. He has begun this discussion being in the belief that the bible is true. So for us, who does not believe in each and every word in the bible, it is fair for his work to be seen as purely irrational blasphemy, which is neither scientific, nor philosophical.

I would not use the term 'blasphemy' and I don't think he's irrational. I think he's disingenuous, and that he's doing equal disservice to the bible and to science by mashing them into popular nonsense. He's doing an even greater disservice to his credulous readers, who might benefit from a better understanding of both the biblical stories and their anthropological roots.
There are enough purveyors of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, agitprop, fake news, snake oil and misrepresentation to turn the brains of half the world to mush. Do we really need to take another one seriously?

[Sushan]

[relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.]

So, what this author is discussing has a relationship to philosophy.

Not really. From the little I've read of his work, it's not dealing any of those things. He's trying to legitimize a mythology as factual. That is apologetics at best - chicanery at worst - and in an case, abuse of his academic credentials, thus casting doubt on all the honest engineers who share his profession. No reflection on philosophers, archeologists or theologians, as he's none of those, and in fact, has no qualifications whatever in the subject on which he writes.

Actually he identifies himself as a scientist.

He can:

He studied engineering physics at the University of British Columbia and in 1979 went to work for MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, a company that at that time specialized in hardware and software for satellite ground stations - wiki

but the science he studied and practices - howbeit from an executive position - unrelated to any of the sciences relevant to the subject on which he's writing books.

Whether philosophy or apologetics, here the problem is that the author is being biased. He has begun this discussion being in the belief that the bible is true. So for us, who does not believe in each and every word in the bible, it is fair for his work to be seen as purely irrational blasphemy, which is neither scientific, nor philosophical.

I would not use the term 'blasphemy' and I don't think he's irrational. I think he's disingenuous, and that he's doing equal disservice to the bible and to science by mashing them into popular nonsense. He's doing an even greater disservice to his credulous readers, who might benefit from a better understanding of both the biblical stories and their anthropological roots.
There are enough purveyors of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, agitprop, fake news, snake oil and misrepresentation to turn the brains of half the world to mush. Do we really need to take another one seriously?

There are enough purveyors of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, agitprop, fake news, snake oil and misrepresentation to turn the brains of half the world to mush. Do we really need to take another one seriously?

Well, when you put it like that, I would say no. You are correct. This is not the only time that someone thought of some popular question in a bit of unusual and marvellous mmanner and created some sort of mash up of the things. Some of such things got some attention, but others did not. What everything like that had in common was, they were not of actual use for anyone, and this concept too have that common quality

[Belindi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.

[evolution]

After an in-depth exploration of science and biblical texts, I have determined that such a reconciliation is indeed possible. This book demonstrates the resolution between science and scripture with respect to the timing of the formation of the universe and the appearance of life on Earth.

As the above quote suggests, the author is trying to reconcile biblical and other religious teachings regarding God's creations along with the scientific theories made so far regarding the same fact of beginnings of the solar system, earth, and life. The author is arguing philosophically that these time lines go hand in hand, and at some occasions only the wordings have added some confusion but the facts are true.

For an example he suggests that the God's creation of solar system, earth, and life in just seven days is a true scenario, but that word 'day' does not mean a 24-hour day that we currently experience but it is thousands of years. And when it is taken like that, it agrees with the since.

What do you think of this philosophical argument?

But that is not an argument. That is just a claim.

Is this reconciliation acceptable?

One would have to see the actual reconciliation to be able to say it is acceptable or not.

Also, and by the way, the word 'reconcile' infers that whatever 'it' is would have been reconciled, which, in and of itself, would have to be acceptable, correct?

Was an actual reconciliation made?

While philosophy is something that uses arguments to prove a thing, and science is a subject that uses research and evidence for the same purpose, can we bring these two to a common table, like this author has done?

Obviously, for some 'things', like whether the Universe began or not, they have to proven by and through arguments first, and then human beings can later on work out how to substantiate this, empirically.

[Sushan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.

Quite correct. This author has studied on various numerological studies and developed (or understood) this so called pattern of events and its repetition. Still, even God has granted free will, so no one has to live by any such imaginative rule or a belief system.

[Alias]

This is not the only time that someone thought of some popular question in a bit of unusual and marvellous mmanner and created some sort of mash up of the things.

There is nothing unusual about this approach. I'm sure it was old hat when I first heard of the 2-billion-year* days of creation in high school, in the early 1960's.
*And whoever was promulgating that theory at that time had the sense not to mix in the young-earth nonsense. It was the era of scientific dynamism and religious ecumenicalism, when all the preachers were trying to reconcile with preachers of competing sects, and dull the argument of secular critics with their reasonable approach to factual information.
In any case, as I mentioned, the long-day theory only covers the first two pages of a very big book. Which then raises the question of time-keeping, and all the other fanciful religious arithmetic, from Genesis III onward - the two or three kinds of time can't be reconciled without some dishonest bookkeeping.
Anyway, it goes no way at all toward legitimizing Noah, Abraham, Sampson, Lot or Moses.

That semi-realistic approach has been abandoned by fundamentalist sects of every kind in the new millennium. Appeal to the extreme, to the emotions, to lowest standard of logical deduction has become their SOP.
It's a pity, really. Religious text, history, cultural impact and personal experience is worth treating seriously.

What everything like that had in common was, they were not of actual use for anyone,

Oh, but they are. They're politicized into repressive laws.

[Sushan]

This is not the only time that someone thought of some popular question in a bit of unusual and marvellous mmanner and created some sort of mash up of the things.

There is nothing unusual about this approach. I'm sure it was old hat when I first heard of the 2-billion-year* days of creation in high school, in the early 1960's.
*And whoever was promulgating that theory at that time had the sense not to mix in the young-earth nonsense. It was the era of scientific dynamism and religious ecumenicalism, when all the preachers were trying to reconcile with preachers of competing sects, and dull the argument of secular critics with their reasonable approach to factual information.
In any case, as I mentioned, the long-day theory only covers the first two pages of a very big book. Which then raises the question of time-keeping, and all the other fanciful religious arithmetic, from Genesis III onward - the two or three kinds of time can't be reconciled without some dishonest bookkeeping.
Anyway, it goes no way at all toward legitimizing Noah, Abraham, Sampson, Lot or Moses.

That semi-realistic approach has been abandoned by fundamentalist sects of every kind in the new millennium. Appeal to the extreme, to the emotions, to lowest standard of logical deduction has become their SOP.
It's a pity, really. Religious text, history, cultural impact and personal experience is worth treating seriously.

What everything like that had in common was, they were not of actual use for anyone,

Oh, but they are. They're politicized into repressive laws.

Seemingly this concept of the Creation have been attempted to be proven several times using several explanations. And this book seems as another addition to that line up.

Cultural differences and religious beliefs should be treated seriously. Otherwise it will be a cause for serious issues. This reminds me about the riots that arose against not letting Muslim Covid Deaths to be buried.

But the religions and preachers should know their boundaries, and should not try to peek into or abuse the boundaries of other subject areas. Whole this reconciliation thought has occurred because the believers have crossed their border.

[Belindi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.

Quite correct. This author has studied on various numerological studies and developed (or understood) this so called pattern of events and its repetition. Still, even God has granted free will, so no one has to live by any such imaginative rule or a belief system.

But neither God, nor nature, have "granted" Free Will. Both God, and nature, are deterministic.

The difference between God and nature is the former knows what he/she/ it is doing and intends to it, while the latter unfolds according to immutable laws usually called 'laws of science' .

[Sushan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

Numerology in The Bible, even if everybody understood it, is not relevant to how we should live.

Quite correct. This author has studied on various numerological studies and developed (or understood) this so called pattern of events and its repetition. Still, even God has granted free will, so no one has to live by any such imaginative rule or a belief system.

But neither God, nor nature, have "granted" Free Will. Both God, and nature, are deterministic.

The difference between God and nature is the former knows what he/she/ it is doing and intends to it, while the latter unfolds according to immutable laws usually called 'laws of science' .

If the God is some sort of a conscious being, then he/she/it might be having his/her/its own reasons for his/her/its doings.

On the other hand, we cannot say that the nature always acts according to the laws of science, because there are occasions where things happen by chance and things happen suddenly with no warning or no apparent reason. At the same time we have yet to discover many things regarding science as well as nature.