Ask a former creationist

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

Sanguis said:
If you're going to ignore it, anyway, then why ask in the first place?

Seems kind of redundant...

I was expecting a simple YES or NO. That's how I phrased the question. Instead, I got a full-page ad, despite my pop-up blocker.

Sanguis · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I was expecting a simple YES or NO. That's how I phrased the question. Instead, I got a full-page ad, despite my pop-up blocker.

The questions you ask, though, a "simple yes or no" wouldn't've sufficed, even remotely.

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
How does it feel when someone glosses over your "full page ad" of information, AV? Does it feel good?

Because that is clearly what you want people to do.

I mean you pay so much lip service to Jesus I can only imagine that Luke 6:31 is tattooed on the inside of your eyelids!

Believe me, Thaumaturgy, I know exactly what getting glossed over feels like.

thaumaturgy · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Maybe I need to get out more or something, but I can't believe people are actually like this.

I keep telling myself (I really do) that they're just pulling my leg.

You're right, AV, we are just pulling your leg. Most of us are highly irrational and will believe doggedly whatever our pastor/preacher/holyman says.

Me? I'm a Southern Baptist-Wiccan-Reformed Muslim, I have to be in order to believe everything I'm told. Which I do.

When Jesus returns (along with his side-kick the Hidden Imam) and they unleash Hati and Skoll to chase down the sungoddes' chariot at Ragnarrgeddon we will all see the truth.

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

Sanguis said:
The questions you ask, though, a "simple yes or no" wouldn't've sufficed, even remotely.

Then why was the first word out of his mouse, "yes"?

69

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
You're right, AV, we are just pulling your leg. Most of us are highly irrational and will believe doggedly whatever our pastor/preacher/holyman says.

Me? I'm a Southern Baptist-Wiccan-Reformed Muslim, I have to be in order to believe everything I'm told. Which I do.

When Jesus returns (along with his side-kick the Hidden Imam) and they unleash Hati and Skoll to chase down the sungoddes' chariot at Ragnarrgeddon we will all see the truth.

Are we done now?

thaumaturgy · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Then don't get upset when I ignore it.

You're right. I was getting kinda worked up. I actually do like putting up a lot of data.

It makes it all the more delicious when the truly pious ask a question and then ignore the response (or clip it to make their point).

But in the end, who can speak more knowledgably about the earth? The person who sits in a windowless little church waiting for God to give 'em someplace better to live in or the guy who spent 11 years studying the earth up close and personal? (Especially when the guy who spent 11 years studying the earth up close also spent several decades trying to understand his own Christian faith!)

Freodin · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Bet me.I'm His ambassador:And I have it in Writing that "God did it" --- so geology can take a hike.

That´s the problem... you don´t have that "in writing".

We were talking about the Flood, catastrophism, uniformitarianism and gradualism.

Now the question that both systems deal with is "How did this thing that we see here get to be that way?"

Gradualism proposes that this happens by slow, constant processes.

Catastrophism proposes that this happens my single huge upheavals.

Now there might be an "eclectic combination" of both - you should like that, best of both worlds and all that - that it can happen by BOTH.

BUT...! And this is an important "BUT", both of these systems agree that the processes involved are observable and repeatable.

So when creationists invoke "The Flood" to explain current geology, they can either agree that it was indeed "The Flood" - that is, water covering the earth, moving, settling, retreating - that caused geological features... or they can invoke God himself, making supernatural adjustments.

The problem with the "either" point: "The Flood" does NOT explain current geological features. You accept that yourself, with your constant statement of "There is no evidence for the Flood".

So it is impossible to use "The Flood" as a 'catastrophic' event to explain anything, because there is nothing by that you can make an explanation.

And because you deny that there is evidence for creation as well, this falls into the same category.

Explanations need to be testable, else they are useless.

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
You're right. I was getting kinda worked up. I actually do like putting up a lot of data.

Yes, and you're very good at it --- (I assume).

I've learned a lot from you:

Correlation of data.
How India is responsible for the Alps - (or whatever those mts are).

You're very articulate and knowledgeable (I assume).

A little rich for me though.

thaumaturgy · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Are we done now?

Are you getting snitty? Let's see:

1. You compared being a scientist to drug and alcohol abuse (LINK)
2. You question if people who have spent a lifetime working toward a scientific ideal are just "pulling your leg"
3. You ask about catastrophism and then clip it and ignore the details and pejoratively call it a "full page ad"

And you are snitty?

Does your "digitally remaster first edition KJV" lack Luke 6:31????

thaumaturgy · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Yes, and you're very good at it --- (I assume).

I've learned a lot from you:

Correlation of data.

How India is responsible for the Alps - (or whatever those mts are).

You're very articulate and knowledgeable (I assume).

A little rich for me though.

Uh, Alps? Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Or does your copy of the globe only cover the Meditteranean area? Or does it top out at geography circa 1611 AD?

Sanguis · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Yes, and you're very good at it --- (I assume).

I get the impression that he's good at supplying data, too.

I've learned a lot from you:

Correlation of data.

How India is responsible for the Alps - (or whatever those mts are).

You could've learned a lot more from him, if you actually paid attention.

You're very articulate and knowledgeable (I assume).

A little rich for me though.

Yes, it's more than an assumption, Thaum actually knows that he's talking about.

If it's a little rich for you, ask him to dull it down a bit, so you can understand it better.

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

Freodin said:
Explanations need to be testable, else they are useless.

The biggest catastrophe associated with the Flood is the death of all life on the planet, except those aboard the Ark.

That is a catastrophe.

But God cleaned it up so effectively, it cannot be found with current instrumentation.

In fact, I don't think it can be found, because it no longer exists.

Thus we have a catastrophe in which the evidence was [thankfully] removed.

The creation of the universe was a catastrophe that generated no evidence, so there was nothing to clean up.

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
1. You compared being a scientist to drug and alcohol abuse (LINK)

I said some people --- that also means "not everyone" --- turn to science.

I'm a believer that some workaholics are that way because they're running from something (or Someone).

I did that myself for a couple of years.

Sanguis · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
The biggest catastrophe associated with the Flood is the death of all life on the planet, except those aboard the Ark.

That is a catastrophe.

But God cleaned it up so effectively, it cannot be found with current instrumentation.

In fact, I don't think it can be found, because it no longer exists.

Thus we have a catastrophe in which the evidence was [thankfully] removed.

The creation of the universe was a catastrophe that generated no evidence, so there was nothing to clean up.

But why would God remove all the evidence?

If someone just shot a load of people, and could go down for mass murder, they'd do all they could to clean up the evidence.

That's the only reason I can think of; God is a mass murderer, he knows he is, and he's willing to lie because he doesn't want anyone else to know.

thaumaturgy · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
But God cleaned it up so effectively, it cannot be found with current instrumentation.

In fact, I don't think it can be found, because it no longer exists.

Thus we have a catastrophe in which the evidence was [thankfully] removed.

There are countless "fossil asssemblage" all over the planet indicating die-offs of various magnitudes. Why did God have to completely remove this one?

Sanguis · Dec 1, 2009

Trilobites, the ancestors of all modern arthropods!

AV1611VET · Dec 1, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
Uh, Alps? Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Or does your copy of the globe only cover the Meditteranean area? Or does it top out at geography circa 1611 AD?

Mountains of Tibet --- my mistake --- 69.

thaumaturgy · Dec 1, 2009

AV1611VET said:
I said some people --- that also means "not everyone" --- turn to science.

Indicating that turning to science is akin to drug and alcohol abuse.

(Actually I understand the detail of your point that some people will turn to anything to avoid other things, but I really do think you need to dial that one back a bit, it was pretty offensive even if it wasn't intended to be as offensive as it read.)

I'm a believer that some workaholics are that way because they're running from something (or Someone).

I did that myself for a couple of years.

That can be said of anything. I actually honestly do understand your point. But next time, do be careful on the hyperbole.

Most of us didn't turn to science to avoid religion or god or anything like that. Some of us actually love doing science. We love learning all our lives.

So, please, if you want to list science (or anything else for that matter) in the list of things comparable to drug or alcohol abuse make sure you are clear in that you are not denigrating all the field or all the good honest people who are in it.

thaumaturgy · Dec 1, 2009

Sanguis said:
Trilobites, the ancestors of all modern arthropods!

Well to be fair, the trilobites clearly didn't make it onto the Ark and drowned in the Flood. I believe that Japeth is the ancestor of all modern day arthropods.

Ask a former creationist

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency