Ask a former creationist

[Freodin]

If rocks can be destroyed by catastrophes, can they be created by catastrophes?

If you can explain how...

This is the problem with creationist´s "catastrophism" vs. geologist´s version: geology uses existing and observable mechanisms. Creationists just replace their usual "Goddidit" with "Flooddidit" or "Falldidit" or whatever.

But as they cannot explain how "x did it", it is a rather useless "explanation".

 

[AV1611VET]

Rank? I'm sorry, again, how many years did you spend studying geology?

Zero --- and I'm not about to start, either.

 

[Sanguis]

Zero --- and I'm not about to start, either.

Then don't claim your alleged "divine knowledge" is more accurate than geology.

Because you know sweet Fanny Adams about geology.

 

[AV1611VET]

'Sactly!

If things can occur via natural process alone, then there's no reason to assume it's the result of the supernatural.

The more viable possibilities of something occurring entirely naturally there are, the less possible the supernatural becomes.

I'm quoting from Appendix 2 of Henry M. Morris' Defender's Study Bible:

The origins controversy is not fundamentally a scientific issue, but rather a life-and-death struggle between the only two basic world-views, each embracing the origin, destiny and meaning of the cosmos and all things in the cosmos - material, biological, and spiritual.

Creation vs Evolution

1. Self-existing eternal Creator vs self-originating or self-existing cosmos

2. Cosmos created by divine fiat vs cosmos organized by itself

3. Basic systems completed in the past by supernatural processes vs. all systems developed by still-continuing natural processes

4. Net changes in created systems "downward" toward disorganization vs net changes in evolving systems "upward" toward higher organization

Since each model of origins entails a comprehensive world-view, embracing the whole of reality, each is basically philosophical or, better, religious. The canard that evolution is science and creation is religion is obviously false since it is impossible for scientists actually to observe or repeat unique events of the past. Evolution is based on the premise of naturalism, not science. In fact, evolution is the underlying premise of more religions than creation.

 

[Sanguis]

I'm quoting from Appendix 2 of Henry M. Morris' Defender's Study Bible:

All I got from that was: Yay for false dichotomies and strawmen!

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can explain how...

The specific act is called creatio ex nihilo.

But as they cannot explain how "x did it", it is a rather useless "explanation".

No, it's not.

Creatio ex nihilo is a viable bottom-line explanation that even scientists can understand.

 

[Sanguis]

Creatio ex nihilo is a viable bottom-line explanation that even scientists can understand.

Again, a useless explanation if you can't explain how.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then don't claim your alleged "divine knowledge" is more accurate than geology.

Because you know sweet Fanny Adams about geology.

If you want to inject "accuracy" into the picture, God said His creation was "very good" --- meaning pluperfect.

And 'sweet Fanny Adams' has nothing on Adam.

 

[AV1611VET]

All I got from that was: Yay for false dichotomies and strawmen!

I don't doubt that one bit.

 

[Sanguis]

If you want to inject "accuracy" into the picture, God said His creation was "very good" --- meaning pluperfect.

So?

Bronze age cavemen realised that that their world wasn't perfect.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, a useless explanation if you can't explain how.

You want the how?

God spoke, and it happened.

 

[Sanguis]

You want the how?

God spoke, and it happened.

How did it happen?

"It happened." isn't a valid explanation.

I speak all the time, and the only thing that happens, is I get told to "shut up.".

 

[AV1611VET]

So?

Bronze age cavemen realised that that their world wasn't perfect.

So do nuclear-age scientists.

Who knew it first?

 

[Sanguis]

So do nuclear-age scientists.

Who knew it first?

The cavemen, obviously.

I can't think of a single person who would've ever thought their world was perfect.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out...

 

[AV1611VET]

How did it happen?

"It happened." isn't a valid explanation.

But creatio ex nihilo is.

I speak all the time, and the only thing that happens, is I get told to "shut up.".

You're not God, and you're not omnipotent.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can't think of a single person who would've ever thought their world was perfect.

I can think of two: Adam and Eve.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work that out...

I don't need one.

 

[Sanguis]

But creatio ex nihilo is.

No it's not. How did everything come from nothing? Creatio ex nihilo explains nothing.

You're not God, and you're not omnipotent.

The difference is, I exist.

 

[Sanguis]

I can think of two: Adam and Eve.

Their world wasn't perfect, though, even if they did exist. They didn't have Modern Warfare 2.

I don't need one.

Yes you do, more than you realise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creatio ex nihilo explains nothing.

Bingo ---

 

[Sanguis]

Bingo ---

Let me rephrase; creatio ex nihilo is an invalid explanation.