Ask a former creationist

[laconicstudent]

So, was God not directly responsible for a mass extinction, of both mankind and other animals?

If "Yes, he was.", then congratulations, God, you're officially the world's most successful mass murderer!

If "No!", then what was this "flood?".

I'm just going to point out that if you accept God as the ultimate arbiter of morality, he gets to define "Murder" and what is and is not justified killing, and what is good and what is evil.

Just saying, this is really pointless. Trying to judge a eternal deity by human moral standards is ludicrous.

 

[Loudmouth]

God never murdered anyone.

Just like Bill Clinton gets to define the word "IS" so that he did not commit adultery.

 

[MoonLancer]

Just like Bill Clinton gets to define the word "IS" so that he did not commit adultery.

I thought what happened was he didn't count oral sex as sexual relations. I think he may have even defined what sexual relations before it was asked.

 

[MoonLancer]

God never murdered anyone.

You should read the bible, Its full of god murdering people.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought what happened was he didn't count oral sex as sexual relations. I think he may have even defined what sexual relations before it was asked.

Well, there you go. Bill Clinton is incapable of having sexual relations outside of marriage in the same way that God is incapable of committing murder.

 

[Loudmouth]

You should read the bible, Its full of god murdering people.

[bill clinton]That depends on what the definition of "smite" is.[/bill clinton]

 

[hangback]

With the amount of damage he inflicts on Christianity it can only be assumed that AV1611VET is one of the devils representative here on earth, from an Atheist point of view I would think they are applauding AV1611VET for his good work,
I also think Mr Dawkins would be proud of him.

Has he ever said 'Christianity can take a hike'?

 

[sandwiches]

With the amount of damage he inflicts on Christianity it can only be assumed that AV1611VET is one of the devils representative here on earth, from an Atheist point of view I would think they are applauding AV1611VET for his good work,
I also think Mr Dawkins would be proud of him.

Has he ever said 'Christianity can take a hike'?

Sadly, you're correct. A cause is usually harmed the most by its most fervent defendants. Unfortunately, this also applies to atheism as I've heard some of the most irrational, disrespectful, and outright idiotic comments from some overzealous atheists as well as religious fundies.

 

[Freodin]

I still think the Flood was catastrophic though.

Whether it shows up in the geological record or not, it was certainly a catastrophe.

Err, no. You are still confusing your concepts.

In catastrophism, a "catastrophy" is a single, large and temporarily limited event that is responsible for certain results that are observed.

So if it doesn´t "show up", it has no "certain results" to be responsible for. But then it is useless to include in any explanatory system.

You can "think" about it what you want... it is meaningless as an explanation for anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Err, no. You are still confusing your concepts.

In catastrophism, a "catastrophy" is a single, large and temporarily limited event that is responsible for certain results that are observed.

So if it doesn´t "show up", it has no "certain results" to be responsible for. But then it is useless to include in any explanatory system.

You can "think" about it what you want... it is meaningless as an explanation for anything.

By your definition, you'll never be able to show me Supertyphoon Pamela, outside of software and some anecdotal testimony.

And that's just 33.5 years later --- wait until it's 4000 years later.

So did a catastrophe occur on Guam in 1976 or not?

 

[AV1611VET]

With the amount of damage he inflicts on Christianity it can only be assumed that AV1611VET is one of the devils representative here on earth, from an Atheist point of view I would think they are applauding AV1611VET for his good work,
I also think Mr Dawkins would be proud of him.

Has he ever said 'Christianity can take a hike'?

You can blame me all you want; it's not going to wash with God though.

Picking what you think is the lowest common denominator to make a decision is not always the best way to go.

Besides, you guys don't need me; you already have the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials to blame.

I'm just a rookie.

 

[sandwiches]

By your definition, you'll never be able to show me Supertyphoon Pamela, outside of software and some anecdotal testimony.

And that's just 33.5 years later --- wait until it's 4000 years later.

So did a catastrophe occur on Guam in 1976 or not?

Well, considering that there's physical evidence, living eyewitnesses, climate records, photographic evidence, one death as a result, and, very importantly, there's a known, natural method through which the typhoon occurred, I'd say that the typhoon is pretty well covered.

Does the biblical flood have anywhere near the same level of evidence to support it?

 

[sandwiches]

You can blame me all you want; it's not going to wash with God though.

Picking what you think is the lowest common denominator to make a decision is not always the best way to go.

Besides, you guys don't need me; you already have the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials to blame.

I'm just a rookie.

Like I said... more harm than good and he doesn't even realize it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, considering that there's physical evidence, living eyewitnesses, climate records, photographic evidence, one death as a result, and, very importantly, there's a known, natural method through which the typhoon occurred, I'd say that the typhoon is pretty well covered.

Yes, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a little girl born either during or just after the storm; and she was named --- you guess it --- Pamela.

But let's pare your list.

Here's your list:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses
• climate records
• photographic evidence
• one death
• known natural method

Filtering the software leaves:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses
• one death

Filtering the one death which, if my memory serves me, was a heart attack attributed to the storm for insurance purposes, that leaves:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses

Filtering physical evidence which today cannot be attributed to Pamela de facto, leaves:

• living eyewitnesses

And we're not going to be around much longer. After we're gone, all you're going to have is software to go by, but eventually that will be brought into question.

To you, Supertyphoon Pamela is software; but to me (and my wife), Supertyphoon was experience.

 

[Freodin]

By your definition, you'll never be able to show me Supertyphoon Pamela, outside of software and some anecdotal testimony.

And that's just 33.5 years later --- wait until it's 4000 years later.

So did a catastrophe occur on Guam in 1976 or not?

This is not the question. We are looking at geological features and the explanations for them.

If you can point me to some geological features that were created by Supertyphoon Pamela, I am quite sure the geologists can pin them down as the result of a huge storm somewhere within the last 50 years. If it didn´t leave a results traceable in geology, then it is simply irrelevant for explantations of geological features.

Is that so difficult to understand? If something is to be used as an explanation, it has to have had an impact.

 

[Hespera]

This is not the question. We are looking at geological features and the explanations for them.

If you can point me to some geological features that were created by Supertyphoon Pamela, I am quite sure the geologists can pin them down as the result of a huge storm somewhere within the last 50 years. If it didn´t leave a results traceable in geology, then it is simply irrelevant for explantations of geological features.

Is that so difficult to understand? If something is to be used as an explanation, it has to have had an impact.

No doubt Guam has experienced thousands of storms over the years.

I imagine a geologist who looked for evidence that there have been massive storms would find it, in the form of things like blocks of coral far inland from the beach.

There are fossil trilobite tracks to be found, rain drop impact marks from hundreds of millions of years ago. some places evidence of what has happened is lost, others its very nicely preserved. "flood" evidence is not to be found anywhere.

Comparing one storm and its evidence on a storm wracked island to the evidence from (what would have been) the greatest geophysical event to ever occur on earth... and only 4000 years ago at that... is less apt than comparing barak obama to the metro goldwin lion.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a little girl born either during or just after the storm; and she was named --- you guess it --- Pamela.

But let's pare your list.

Here's your list:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses
• climate records
• photographic evidence
• one death
• known natural method

Filtering the software leaves:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses
• one death

Filtering the one death which, if my memory serves me, was a heart attack attributed to the storm for insurance purposes, that leaves:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses

Filtering physical evidence which today cannot be attributed to Pamela de facto, leaves:

• living eyewitnesses

And we're not going to be around much longer. After we're gone, all you're going to have is software to go by, but eventually that will be brought into question.

To you, Supertyphoon Pamela is software; but to me (and my wife), Supertyphoon was experience.

Why are you taking out the climate records of that time, the photographs, and the physical evidence left behind by it? Are you saying that the photographs and records were made up by the simulation software??

Also, why are you taking out the fact that we know (tenuously, granted) how typhoons work or, at the very least, we know that they do indeed happen in nature?

 

[sandwiches]

Yes, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was a little girl born either during or just after the storm; and she was named --- you guess it --- Pamela.

But let's pare your list.

Here's your list:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses
• climate records
• photographic evidence
• one death
• known natural method

Filtering the software leaves:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses
• one death

Filtering the one death which, if my memory serves me, was a heart attack attributed to the storm for insurance purposes, that leaves:

• physical evidence
• living eyewitnesses

Filtering physical evidence which today cannot be attributed to Pamela de facto, leaves:

• living eyewitnesses

And we're not going to be around much longer. After we're gone, all you're going to have is software to go by, but eventually that will be brought into question.

To you, Supertyphoon Pamela is software; but to me (and my wife), Supertyphoon was experience.

Why are you taking out the climate records of that time, the photographs, and the physical evidence left behind by it? Are you saying that the photographs and records were made up by the simulation software??

Also, why are you taking out the fact that we know (tenuously, granted) how typhoons work or, at the very least, we know that they do indeed happen in nature?

However, as Freodin indicated, if the typhoon left no geological evidence it ever occurred, then we simply cannot use geology to corroborate that it ever happened, can we? It's not really hard to understand, I would think.

 

[hangback]

Why are you taking out the climate records of that time, the photographs, and the physical evidence left behind by it? Are you saying that the photographs and records were made up by the simulation software??

Also, why are you taking out the fact that we know (tenuously, granted) how typhoons work or, at the very least, we know that they do indeed happen in nature?

It's called 'clutching at straws', creationists do it as a last resort, if you fall for it they think they have won the argument, if you don't fall for it they leave and forget that they even had the argument, the ability to do that has taken many many years of indoctrination to acquire.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that so difficult to understand? If something is to be used as an explanation, it has to have had an impact.

Fair enough, Freodin.

I'm gonna have to pull rank on geology then: God did it.