Creationists are told the flood is true and actually happened,

[godsmission]

if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence? some even say it happened but you must just believe it happened because God must have cleaned up any evidence, and these are supposed to be reasonable and sensible people, is it any wonder creationists are dismissed as being backward and ignorant?

 

[super animator]

Well scientific theories are based on evidence and math. It's no surprise why the global flood shouldn't be consider scientific. You should already know it by now.

 

[Muad Dib]

but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence?

What? Could your question be rephrased as: "Why don't creationists ask for evidence about a literal interpretation of the bible that is at odds with science?" Implying at the same time that the evidence could sway their view... lol

Would it not be inconsistent, to ask for evidence about the global flood, yet dismiss the evidence against Adam and Eve. Surely both topics come in direct conflict with science, and both are believed literally by some creationists.

 

[Parogar]

if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence? some even say it happened but you must just believe it happened because God must have cleaned up any evidence, and these are supposed to be reasonable and sensible people, is it any wonder creationists are dismissed as being backward and ignorant?

Says who?

 

[godsmission]

Says who?

Creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence?

Because we treat the Flood as history.

We don't ask to see evidence of Christopher Columbus, the 1906 Earthquake, the 1871 Chicago Fire, the Civil War, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Gemini Missions, the Lincoln Assassination, the Missouri Compromise, the impressment of American sailors, the sinking of the Titanic, the Boston Strangler, the debut of Leave it to Beaver, the gun battle at the O.K. Corral, Gilligan's Island, Phlogiston, Thalidomide safety reports, the weather report the day the Challenger went up, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, or Kookla, Fran, and Ollie.

Some things we just consider historical.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Because we treat the Flood as history.

We don't ask to see evidence of Christopher Columbus, the 1906 Earthquake, the 1871 Chicago Fire, the Civil War, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Gemini Missions, the Lincoln Assassination, the Missouri Compromise, the impressment of American sailors, the sinking of the Titanic, the Boston Strangler, the debut of Leave it to Beaver, the gun battle at the O.K. Corral, Gilligan's Island, Phlogiston, Thalidomide safety reports, the weather report the day the Challenger went up, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, or Kookla, Fran, and Ollie.

Some things we just consider historical.

None of those conflict with observed reality. The flood story does. Evidence is needed, otherwise it should be considered bunk.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of those conflict with observed reality. The flood story does. Evidence is needed, otherwise it should be considered bunk.

I'll consider it history --- thank you.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I'll consider it history --- thank you.

You can consider it pasta bolognese for all I care. It doesn't make it so.

 

[azmurath]

I'll consider it history --- thank you.

Except history is well documented and well evidenced. Just because it is documented doesn't mean it is history, it needs the physical evidence to back it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except history is well documented and well evidenced. Just because it is documented doesn't mean it is history, it needs the physical evidence to back it up.

The Bible said it --- that settles it.

Anything to the contrary is futile resistance.

 

[super animator]

The Bible said it --- that settles it.

Anything to the contrary is futile resistance.

Which is the reason why the most atheist/agnostic/christains (or what ever belief system you could think of) shouldn't bother repsonding to you. They don't share the same beliefs or interpretation as you do!

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is the reason why the most atheist/agnostic/christains (or what ever belief system you could think of) shouldn't bother repsonding to you. They don't share the same beliefs or interpretation as you do!

That's no reason not to respond.

If it was, Pluto would still be a planet.

 

[gaara4158]

That's no reason not to respond.

If it was, Pluto would still be a planet.

It's a great reason not to respond. There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks they've won by quoting ancient scripture that you don't believe in. You won't get anywhere. They'll just sit there smugly parroting scripture while you go through great pains to formulate a cogent argument that they won't even read.

Even if you're not an actual troll, you do have all the characteristics of one. You rarely acknowledge arguments that defeat your points, you change the subject to something you know will provoke inflammatory responses, and you repetitively post PRATTs and act like it's the first time.

And even when you're called out on it, you find a way to weasel out of it using the very tactics I've listed above.

But I digress. It's useless to argue with someone when you know exactly what they're going to say in response. Makes me wonder why I'm even posting this.

 

[SimplyNothing]

It's a great reason not to respond. There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks they've won by quoting ancient scripture that you don't believe in. You won't get anywhere. They'll just sit there smugly parroting scripture while you go through great pains to formulate a cogent argument that they won't even read.

Even if you're not an actual troll, you do have all the characteristics of one. You rarely acknowledge arguments that defeat your points, you change the subject to something you know will provoke inflammatory responses, and you repetitively post PRATTs and act like it's the first time.

And even when you're called out on it, you find a way to weasel out of it using the very tactics I've listed above.

But I digress. It's useless to argue with someone when you know exactly what they're going to say in response. Makes me wonder why I'm even posting this.

We all need to vent sometimes.

And you need a hug.

 

[laconicstudent]

Why do people think Pluto becoming a dwarf planet is a bad thing for science? It was a matter of definitions. Pluto was too small. If we had held to a planet simply being an object that orbits the Sun, we were finding too many other bodies for this to reasonable.

So they decided to set an additional caveat on "Planet-hood". In addition to not being a satellite (moon), orbiting the Sun, and having sufficient mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium.

AND the new one is that it has to be able to clear its orbital path of other objects. So Pluto, Ceres, Eris, Makemake and Haumea do not qualify.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no point in arguing with someone who thinks they've won by quoting ancient scripture that you don't believe in. You won't get anywhere. They'll just sit there smugly parroting scripture while you go through great pains to formulate a cogent argument that they won't even read.

Even if you're not an actual troll, you do have all the characteristics of one. You rarely acknowledge arguments that defeat your points, you change the subject to something you know will provoke inflammatory responses, and you repetitively post PRATTs and act like it's the first time.

And even when you're called out on it, you find a way to weasel out of it using the very tactics I've listed above.

But I digress. It's useless to argue with someone when you know exactly what they're going to say in response. Makes me wonder why I'm even posting this.

I'd like to say three things in response here:

1) The Word of God will not return void; so even when I post a verse of Scripture and It's ignored, It did something inside of them.

2) These people display a lack of basic theology to the point that I'm almost convinced that the only thing they understand is the phrase: God did it. In point of fact, I don't think they understand half of what I'm saying; but through repetition, something should sink in somewhere.

3) I get the impression --- (and I could be wrong) --- but I get the impression that these people have seen things like bumper stickers that say: GOD SAID IT - THAT SETTLES IT, and just took it with a grain of salt. One of the things that I think I do here, is show them just how effective statements like that are; so the next time they see something like that, they'll think twice before concluding it's an empty remark.

 

[gaara4158]

I'd like to say three things in response here:

1) The Word of God will not return void; so even when I post a verse of Scripture and It's ignored, It did something inside of them.

2) These people display a lack of basic theology to the point that I'm almost convinced that the only thing they understand is the phrase: God did it. In point of fact, I don't think they understand half of what I'm saying; but through repetition, something should sink in somewhere.

3) I get the impression --- (and I could be wrong) --- but I get the impression that these people have seen things like bumper stickers that say: GOD SAID IT - THAT SETTLES IT, and just took it with a grain of salt. One of the things that I think I do here, is show them just how effective statements like that are; so the next time they see something like that, they'll think twice before concluding it's an empty remark.

1) See? Even in discussing the incompatibility of our operating systems, we are unable to reach a plane of agreement. You believe scripture is affecting nonbelievers in a way that we do not. It's like we're not even having the same conversation.

2) Many of us are well-versed in "basic theology," having been theists ourselves at one time. However, most of the verses you post can be reduced to "God did it." The message you send when you post a Bible verse to trump whatever scientific discovery is threatening your beliefs is that God did it, and that settles it. But consequently, you're also saying that this scientific discovery didn't do it, and that these scientists are wrong. The life's work of these scientists must be satanic or flawed so obviously that a layman could strike it down, simply because it contradicts your interpretation of your favorite book. You can imagine how irksome that can be. You may get the warm fuzzies from the scripture you post, but all we see is "God did it and the natural processes we've observed and proven didn't."

3) The only effect that phrase has is to show your opponent that you're not interested in learning anything. You believe what you believe and that will never change. The arguments of small children are equally as powerful.

 

[laconicstudent]

I'd like to say three things in response here:

1) The Word of God will not return void; so even when I post a verse of Scripture and It's ignored, It did something inside of them.

Ugh, prove that this statement has anything to do with science

2) These people display a lack of basic theology to the point that I'm almost convinced that the only thing they understand is the phrase: God did it. In point of fact, I don't think they understand half of what I'm saying; but through repetition, something should sink in somewhere.

Theology is relevant to a discussion of physical sciences, how?

3) I get the impression --- (and I could be wrong) --- but I get the impression that these people have seen things like bumper stickers that say: GOD SAID IT - THAT SETTLES IT, and just took it with a grain of salt. One of the things that I think I do here, is show them just how effective statements like that are; so the next time they see something like that, they'll think twice before concluding it's an empty remark.

But it is an empty statement. It isn't backed up by any proof, and is contradicted by a vast quantity of scientific evidence.

 

[Cabal]

I'd like to say three things in response here:

1) The Word of God will not return void; so even when I post a verse of Scripture and It's ignored, It did something inside of them.

That depends on the context.

I suspect shoehorning evolution into a verse about King Solomon will not prove fruitful in the way you expect.

2) These people display a lack of basic theology to the point that I'm almost convinced that the only thing they understand is the phrase: God did it. In point of fact, I don't think they understand half of what I'm saying; but through repetition, something should sink in somewhere.

Again, there is no codified "Basic Doctrine" - maybe in your little church clique but not elsewhere.

And repeating errors just makes it sink in that you haven't a clue what you're talking about half the time.

3) I get the impression --- (and I could be wrong) --- but I get the impression that these people have seen things like bumper stickers that say: GOD SAID IT - THAT SETTLES IT, and just took it with a grain of salt. One of the things that I think I do here, is show them just how effective statements like that are; so the next time they see something like that, they'll think twice before concluding it's an empty remark.

I really love that you think that kind of bullheaded mantra is even remotely effective.

God help us.