For RichardT: why creationism is harmful

[Chalnoth]

Please give me an example where the Bible appears to contradict the physical world - (other than a miracle, which is a direct contradiction to the laws of nature).

Just one though, please.

Okay.
[bible]Genesis 2:7[/bible]

Man was not formed out of dirt. Man evolved.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Okay.
[bible]Genesis 2:7[/bible]

Man was not formed out of dirt. Man evolved.

Chalnoth FTW!

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay.
[bible]Genesis 2:7[/bible]

Man was not formed out of dirt. Man evolved.

I'm not sure this is the point Aggie is making with me; but we'll see.

The Bible disagrees with you, btw.

[bible]Nehemiah 9:6[/bible]

 

[Aggie]

Chalnoth, your example is a little more vague than I was hoping for. I’ve been trying to think of the best example of a specific piece of physical evidence that contradicts young-earth creationism. There are a lot of possibilities, but AV asked for just one, and I’d like it to be one that can’t be explained by any creationist model, not even the “embedded age” hypothesis.

AV, I guess I’ll go with the Great Barrier Reef. Based on the growth rate of coral polyps, it would have taken at least 500,000 years for this reef to reach its current size. I know you would explain this by saying that God created the reef with the appearance of age, but this reef also poses a more serious problem for young-earth creationism.

Coral can’t survive in water that’s more than 150 feet deep, because it can’t live without sunlight. Slight changes in temperature and salinity also kill coral, so there’s no way this reef could have survived a global flood. Yet the structure of this reef shows that it’s grown continuously for as long as it’s existed, with only slight changes due to the sea level gradually rising after the end of the Ice Age. This isn’t possible if there was a global flood sometime within the past 10,000 years, which would have killed most of it.

Most of the theistic evolutionists at this forum would probably say that this doesn’t contradict the Bible, because they think of the flood story in Genesis as either an allegory or a massive localized flood. But I know that you think a literal interpretation of this is the only acceptable one, so the Great Barrier Reef definitely contradicts your interpretation of the Bible.

I’m not sure exactly why you needed me to provide a specific example of this, since other examples of the same thing have been posted before. But now that I’ve given you one, what do you have to say about the idea that when physical evidence like this contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, it’s the first which you reject rather than the second?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not sure this is the point Aggie is making with me; but we'll see.

The Bible disagrees with you, btw.

[bible]Nehemiah 9:6[/bible]

Another example of how the Bible contradicts the physical world! Now you're getting the hang of this, AV!

 

[MoonLancer]

Please give me an example where the Bible appears to contradict the physical world - (other than a miracle, which is a direct contradiction to the laws of nature).

Just one though, please.

The earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, pie is not 3, bats are not birds and vise versa.

 

[LittleNipper]

The earth is not flat, it is not the center of the universe, pie is not 3, bats are not birds and vise versa.

The Pi issue provides the interested party with the THICKNESS of the bowl as well as its circumference. And while bats are not birds, they do fly and are grouped together with animals that mostly do fly. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[LittleNipper]

Chalnoth, your example is a little more vague than I was hoping for. I’ve been trying to think of the best example of a specific piece of physical evidence that contradicts young-earth creationism. There are a lot of possibilities, but AV asked for just one, and I’d like it to be one that can’t be explained by any creationist model, not even the “embedded age” hypothesis.

AV, I guess I’ll go with the Great Barrier Reef. Based on the growth rate of coral polyps, it would have taken at least 500,000 years for this reef to reach its current size. I know you would explain this by saying that God created the reef with the appearance of age, but this reef also poses a more serious problem for young-earth creationism.

Coral can’t survive in water that’s more than 150 feet deep, because it can’t live without sunlight. Slight changes in temperature and salinity also kill coral, so there’s no way this reef could have survived a global flood. Yet the structure of this reef shows that it’s grown continuously for as long as it’s existed, with only slight changes due to the sea level gradually rising after the end of the Ice Age. This isn’t possible if there was a global flood sometime within the past 10,000 years, which would have killed most of it.

Most of the theistic evolutionists at this forum would probably say that this doesn’t contradict the Bible, because they think of the flood story in Genesis as either an allegory or a massive localized flood. But I know that you think a literal interpretation of this is the only acceptable one, so the Great Barrier Reef definitely contradicts your interpretation of the Bible.

I’m not sure exactly why you needed me to provide a specific example of this, since other examples of the same thing have been posted before. But now that I’ve given you one, what do you have to say about the idea that when physical evidence like this contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, it’s the first which you reject rather than the second?

Reefs have been known to grow much faster under certain conditions.

 

[gamespotter10]

Reefs have been known to grow much faster under certain conditions.

what kinds of conditions?

 

[peteos]

what kinds of conditions?

In a flood. Much much faster.

 

[necroforest]

In a flood. Much much faster.

like, 500,000/6000 times as fast.

COINCIDENCE?

 

[AV1611VET]

In addition, and I may be wrong on this, but I believe it's the density of the reef, not the size of the reef that determines its age.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

like, 500,000/6000 times as fast.

COINCIDENCE?

Lol! Yes and back then they just loved to grow in deep turbulent water not like today where they need shallow and clear water.

 

[Aggie]

In addition, and I may be wrong on this, but I believe it's the density of the reef, not the size of the reef that determines its age.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that you don’t think the Great Barrier Reef contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis? I guess we can discuss whether it does or not, and whether there’s a better example I should have provided instead, but first I’d like to finish discussing what I brought up originally.

Now that you’re challenging me to find an example of something in the physical world that clearly contradicts young-earth creationism, does that mean you’ll change your interpretation of the Bible if I can show you one? And if you still aren’t willing to change your interpretation of the Bible based on physical evidence, what do you have to say about the fact that you’re using the Bible to reject the same type of evidence that caused you to consider it an authority in the first place?

 

[RichardT]

I'm going to bring this thread back from the grave because I had just realized TODAY (August 20, 2014) that this thread was written about me 7 years ago and it's kind of overwhelming to me that I haven't noticed it in all of this time.

I find this thread fascinating in some ways. It brings back memories of my flawed thinking. I'd actually like to get in touch with Aggie again and talk to him about this thread and the evolution of my thinking throughout the years but I doubt that he posts here anymore. I don't even know if many of the same people are still on this board.

Anyway, if anyone remembers this and wants to discuss this thread anymore with me, I'll be here to reply.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hey. Welcome back.

 

[RichardT]

Hey. Welcome back.

Thanks. I'll be around. I forgot how entertaining these boards could be. It's just the right mix of really knowledgeable people and few ultra-dedicated creationists.

 

[Aggie]

I find this thread fascinating in some ways. It brings back memories of my flawed thinking. I'd actually like to get in touch with Aggie again and talk to him about this thread and the evolution of my thinking throughout the years but I doubt that he posts here anymore. I don't even know if many of the same people are still on this board.

I still check this forum occasionally, but I don't find it nearly as interesting as I used to. In my opinion, the quality of the discussion here has been in a decline ever since Erwin Loh stepped down as the webmaster.

I'm glad that you eventually stopped being a creationist. When people claim that trying to educate creationists about evolution is a lost cause, you're one of the cases I've sometimes used as a counterexample. (I hope you don't mind that.)

 

[RickG]

In addition, and I may be wrong on this, but I believe it's the density of the reef, not the size of the reef that determines its age.

There are several methods for dating corals which include, the Uranium/Thorium series, Ba/Ca ratios, Electron Spin Resonance, Marine Oxygen Isotopes.

 

[USincognito]

Please keep in mind when responding that this thread is 7 years old.