Ask a former creationist

[AV1611VET]

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

Why should I? I'm denying it, remember?

I don't need to know everything right down to Blue Angel Shale and the Cliffs of Whitedover (?) to claim "God did it", do I?

 

[Sanguis]

Why should I? I'm denying it, remember?

I don't need to know everything right down to Blue Angel Shale and the Cliffs of Whitedover (?) to claim "God did it", do I?

No - you don't actually need to know anything (Which you clearly don't.) to claim "Goddidit".

It's the White Cliffs of Dover, btw. Beautiful looking at them through binoculars from the Isle of Wight.

Anyway, on what grounds do you deny it? I can deny that washing red with white clothes makes both of them go pink, if I want, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[AV1611VET]

But why would God remove all the evidence?

For sanitary and safety reasons.

Also, it's possible that the super race that was destroyed did some pretty hefty work that God erased.

In other words, God "reset" the earth's topography, but w/o some things --- like life.

 

[Freodin]

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.

You mangle your terms again. A catastrophy usually has "catastrophic" effects, because life - especially human life - needs rather constant and quite conditions. But the "catastrophes" that we talk about - and that YOU talk about when you call the creation of the universe one are simply big changing events. Equivocation.

So the "biggest catastrophy" of the Flood is, in geological view, not that a lot of humans died, but that the whole earth was covered with water - and whatnot creationists want the Flood to do for them.

But if you claim that "God cleaned up" afterwards, the effects of the Flood are not observable. There is no difference in geological terms if the Flood happened (that way) or not at all. But if a factor makes no difference, it cannot be used as an explanation. It is neutral.

In your case, God´s housecleaning would be the "catastrophy". But as that was done to remove the "evidence", it is also neutral. Flood and cleaning, or no Flood and cleaning result in the same effect. No chance for an explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Are you familiar with the flip-side of this coin, Thaumaturgy?

I'm sure you are.

On the reverse: those who turn to science to escape the pressures of life.

On the obverse: those who turn to science because --- say it with me, please --- they are gifted to us from God.

I put you, personally, on the obverse.

(And you know it.)

 

[Sanguis]

For sanitary and safety reasons.

Also, it's possible that the super race that was destroyed did some pretty hefty work that God erased.

In other words, God "reset" the earth's topography, but w/o some things --- like life.

Do you not see the whole problem with that, though?

God committed mass murder, because mankind wasn't what he wanted it to be? They put more faith in their own abilities, than they put in God. Would I be correct in saying that?

Wouldn't it, then, be more "healthy" to remember that, and leave evidence of that mistake we allegedly made, so we could learn from it, than to erase all evidence that it ever happened, ever?

Isn't is akin to erasing all evidence of slavery? If we knew that slavery hadn't happened, because all the negative evidence of it dissapeared then we wouldn't think twice about it, because there's no precedent to say that it didn't work?

How can I put this?

I know, how can we learn from our mistakes, if it appears that our mistakes never happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll get back to this later, guys --- Captain Kangaroo is coming on.

 

[Mahammad]

Ask a former Creationist? Is Evolution a religion now

 

[shinbits]

Wow, 95 posts in one day.

 

[shinbits]

95 posts since this morning, and it's not even 6 PM. CF debates for you.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you familiar with the flip-side of this coin, Thaumaturgy?

I'm sure you are.

Can you provide any examples where I have denigrated someone because of their faith?

I will admit to sometimes being harsh, but as I've said a million times on this board I wouldn't want to ever take someone's religious faith away from them.

What I debate against are those who would have science weakened for religious purposes or have anti-science taught as science.

I am an atheist so I don't believe in God. But if you want to believe in God, as I've said before, that is fine! For those who have faith and it serves them well, more power to 'em!

What I resent is being told scientists:

1. Are lying (not that you necessarily do this, but others have said this)
2. Are attempting to bamboozle people for money-money-money
3. are wrong about science the creationist knows nothing about and has no interest in learning about

The thing I think you do well is that you are quite clear that your views on the creation of the earth and the earth's history have no real evidence outside of the Bible. That's good. That's called religion.

I would hope, then, that you are OK with science being taught in science classes. Am I correct? Or does the science have to still pass muster with you?

You are perfectly free to reject any and all science you like in preference to the Bible. Just don't try to tell scientists how to do science and we're all OK!

You guys get your "tax exempt status" and we don't complain, we get research dollars and you don't complain! Easy peasy!

Kids can be taught evidence based science in science classes and you can teach 'em whatever you like in Sunday School! It works out great.

 

[Sanguis]

I'll get back to this later, guys --- Captain Kangaroo is coming on.

But kangaroos don't exist!

Seriously!

God failed to mention their "type" in the Bible, so they can't exist!

 

[Split Rock]

I would hope, then, that you are OK with science being taught in science classes. Am I correct? Or does the science have to still pass muster with you?

You are perfectly free to reject any and all science you like in preference to the Bible. Just don't try to tell scientists how to do science and we're all OK!

You guys get your "tax exempt status" and we don't complain, we get research dollars and you don't complain! Easy peasy!

Kids can be taught evidence based science in science classes and you can teach 'em whatever you like in Sunday School! It works out great.

You forget that AVET is on record as wanting to see anyone who teaches evolution to be Tarred *opps* Glued and Feathered Just for "humiliation" purposes, of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

But if you claim that "God cleaned up" afterwards, the effects of the Flood are not observable. There is no difference in geological terms if the Flood happened (that way) or not at all. But if a factor makes no difference, it cannot be used as an explanation. It is neutral.

I still think the Flood was catastrophic though.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

God committed mass murder, because mankind wasn't what he wanted it to be?

God never murdered anyone.

 

[Sanguis]

I still think the Flood was catastrophic though.

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

It was a catastrophe in the same way Saruman's army of 10,000 orcs attacking Gondor was pretty catastrophic.

It didn't actually happen, but if it did, then yes, it would be very catastrophic.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was a catastrophe in the same way Saruman's army of 10,000 orcs attacking Gondor was pretty catastrophic.

That's the spirit ---

When you don't have anything to say, spout fiction.

(And it'll increase your post count as well.)

 

[Sanguis]

That's the spirit ---

When you don't have anything to say, spout fiction.

Fiction seems to be the only language you understand.

"Goddidit."

Lulz.

 

[AV1611VET]

Save for everyone in the world except Noah, his kids and his wife.

Well, you just reduced the post Flood population by another three people; but for the record --- no.

 

[Sanguis]

Well, you just reduced the post Flood population by another three people; but for the record --- no.

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?".