New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[Subduction Zone]

From Conservapedia:

Volcanoes
The Post-Noachian Flood Volcano Theory comes from the example of Krakatoa, which, in 1883, erupted and destroyed most of the island, thus remaining lifeless for many years. Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking.

And the video explaining it:

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 39) - YouTube

 

[RedRover]

From Conservapedia:
And the video explaining it:

Set 'em up and knock them down, more straw-man arguments from evos. To bad you do not take the time to learn what creationism really says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Set 'em up and knock them down, more straw-man arguments from evos. To bad you do not take the time to learn what creationism really says.

How is that a stawman?

The ridiculous idea was from one of your sources. Conservapedia is a creationist source. The idea of exploding volcanoes sending koala bears halfway around the world came from you guys, not from us.

It is hilarious, isn't it?

Even you must have gotten a good laugh at that.

ETA: The quote is still there:

"Still the same life that was there before the eruption eventually came back. It is possible that volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking."

Boom, "Oi, there goes a Koala Bear"

 

[LastSeven]

So, as an atheist, do you take the ridiculous theories of creationists as evidence that there is no "creation"? Or do you have actual evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, as an atheist, do you take the ridiculous theories of creationists as evidence that there is no "creation"? Or do you have actual evidence?

No, I find them extremely entertaining.

Look at the Conservapedia link. They are seriously proposing exploding wallabies and koalas to Australia!

And of course we have more than enough evidence for evolution. It is nice to take a break from science now and then and look at the delusions of our "opponents". With friends like these who needs enemies.

 

[LastSeven]

Yes, the theory is ridiculous, but I'm just wondering what is your point of posting it?

Are you trying to make the point that because this is a ridiculous theory, that therefore there is no good explanation for how koalas came to Australia, and therefore creationists are wrong about creationism altogether?

Or are you just posting it so we can all have a good laugh? Because if that's all it is, then that's fine. Some people may get a chuckle out of this. But if you're actually trying to make a point then you're going to have to be more explicit, because I don't see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the theory is ridiculous, but I'm just wondering what is your point of posting it?

Are you trying to make the point that because this is a ridiculous theory, that therefore there is no good explanation for how koalas came to Australia, and therefore creationists are wrong about creationism altogether?

Or are you just posting it so we can all have a good laugh? Because if that's all it is, then that's fine. Some people may get a chuckle out of this. But if you're actually trying to make a point then you're going to have to be more explicit, because I don't see it.

I am posting it mainly for the humor value.

All creationist claims are laughable, this is a much more laughable claim than most.

Why do creationists hate science so much? To be a YEC you have to deny all science since and including Newton. Wouldn't you laugh at someone like that that demanded we treat them seriously?

 

[LastSeven]

Where do you get the idea that creationists hate science? Don't you know that science is merely the discovery of creation? There is no battle between science and creation. That would in fact be impossible. Science just hasn't figured it all out yet.

Isaac Newton himself, one of history's greatest scientific minds, was in fact a strong believer in God the creator. He wrote:

"The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being. He governs all things and knows all things that are or can be done. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."​

 

[lasthero]

Isaac Newton himself, one of history's greatest scientific minds, was in fact a strong believer in God the creator.

He was also an alchemist, believed he was specially chosen by God for prophetic visions, looked for Biblical Codes, thought he could calculate the Apocalypse (2060, by the way, look forward to it), and believed in Atlantis, among other things. Were he alive today, he'd probably be labeled a cultist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where do you get the idea that creationists hate science? Don't you know that science is merely the discovery of creation? There is no battle between science and creation. That would in fact be impossible. Science just hasn't figured it all out yet.

Isaac Newton himself, one of history's greatest scientific minds, was in fact a strong believer in God the creator. He wrote:

"The true God is a living, intelligent and powerful being. He governs all things and knows all things that are or can be done. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."​

Yes, I agree, he did have some fallacious beliefs. It is his science that we are discussing, not his flaws.

And to assume that creation is true is the opposite of science. Science makes no assumptions ahead of time as to what is true or not, it only follows the evidence. Even Newtons's science shows that our solar system is billions of years old. and yet YEC's deny this. Therefore they deny Newton's physics.

 

[LastSeven]

Assuming creation is true is not the opposite of science. That is impossible, since science is the discovery of creation.

There is debate among creationists as to whether the earth is 7,000 years old or billions of years old or somewhere in between. The fact is, it doesn't really matter how old the earth is or how old the stars are. The important point we agree on, which is that it was all created by an intelligent God. Pointing to YEC beliefs as evidence of the fallacy of creation in general is a straw man argument.

Personally, I don't pretend to know how old the earth is, but I also don't blindly believe what scientists tell us. Scientists try to look into the past by looking at the present, because that is all they have, but doing so requires the assumption that states of matter have been constant throughout history, and we simply don't know if that is the case.

Since God is all powerful and exists outside of the constraints of time it is nothing for Him to have created something instantaneously that appears to have taken billions of years to form. On the other hand, it is also possible that he created the earth and allowed it to naturally evolve over billions of years, before he created man. I don't know, and I don't care. Either way, the earth is a result of intelligent design, and science is merely man's way of trying to quantify it all.

Think about it. If you choose to believe only in science, what will you do when they announce that they have discovered the spirit particle?

 

[lasthero]

Since God is all powerful and exists outside of the constraints of time it is nothing for Him to have created something instantaneously that appears to have taken billions of years to form.

What about tumbling asteroids? The craters on the Moon?

 

[LastSeven]

He was also an alchemist, believed he was specially chosen by God for prophetic visions, looked for Biblical Codes, thought he could calculate the Apocalypse (2060, by the way, look forward to it), and believed in Atlantis, among other things. Were he alive today, he'd probably be labeled a cultist.

Being labelled anything in today's society does not mean much. As scripture predicted this is exactly what would happen. Good will be considered evil, and evil, good.

And as it so happens, when searching for those Biblical Codes, he found them.

 

[lasthero]

Being labelled anything in today's society does not mean much.

Never said it did. Newton was a brilliant man, to be sure, but that doesn't do a thing to validate his supernatural beliefs.

And as it so happens, when searching for those Biblical Codes, he found them.

Of course he found them. If you look for patterns hard enough, you'll always find them.

 

[LastSeven]

What about tumbling asteroids? The craters on the Moon?

What about them? Didn't I already answer the question? An all powerful God can create a system of galaxies in any state he chooses. Those craters could have appeared naturally and gradually over the course of time, or he could have painted each one individually with the tip of his finger in a matter of seconds.

 

[LastSeven]

Never said it did. Newton was a brilliant man, to be sure, but that doesn't do a thing to validate his supernatural beliefs.

Don't try to turn this around. You used it to try to invalidate his supernatural beliefs.

 

[LastSeven]

Of course he found them. If you look for patterns hard enough, you'll always find them.

Clearly you don't have a clue what he found.

 

[lasthero]

or he could have painted each one individually with the tip of his finger in a matter of seconds.

What would be the point of that? It's not like the Moon NEEDS to have craters. And with the tumbling asteroids, what would be the point of making them spin in such a way that would make one think, when calculated, that they've been turning as such for billions of years?

 

[lasthero]

Clearly you don't have a clue what he found.

I do. It's not terribly impressive.

 

[lasthero]

Don't try to turn this around. You used it to try to invalidate his supernatural beliefs.

No, I didn't. I stated my point quite clearly.

His supernatural beliefs no more invalidate theism than his scientific beliefs would do the opposite. My point was that his belief in God is a non-issue. Acting like there's a connection is an appeal to authority.