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

[biggles53]

The point is, science is the discovery of creation. So science never discovers "new" things, they only newly discover old things. As time goes by the scientists discover more and more truths about creation and eventually, if given enough time and resources, they would discover a spirit world. Would that then finally allow you to believe in a supernatural god?

Or it might discover fairies at the bottom of my garden...or Russell's Teapot whirling through space....or unicorns...

I could keep 'iffing' and 'maybe'ing all day long.....what gain is there in that...?
You can no more assert that the scientific process would eventually discover spirits than you can for any of those other elements of the imagination.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. The earth was created by God faster than natural. That much is explained in Genesis. So we would find an earth and universe looking old, which is not really old, and that is exactly what we find.

As I asked before and you refused to answer. Does Genesis say that God created Adam and Eve from a womb and watched over them as the learned to crawl and walk? Is God creating Adam and Eve as adults, looking old, and then showing this, a deception?

God explains exactly how he did things. So the only person that is being deceived is you and not by God.

Don't you love the flights of fantasy that YEC's have to go through to defend their beliefs?

In answer to your foolish question. No. But then it is merely a silly myth.

The Bible is not a deception by God since it was written by man. That is the something that creationists cannot understand. In fact part of the Bible could be true and yet the creation story false without "god lying". Once again the Bible was written by man, not God. No Christian has ever given evidence that God wrote the Bible. Its many flaws should tell you that it was not written by God. Instead you go into even more flights of fancy to defend your flawed work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution taken out to where we all have a common ancestor and are all related and apes turned into a man is not science.

That's like taking the fact that it rains to then say given enough time, and conditions, that the rain could create an ice sculpture of the empire state building.

E.D. shame on you. Ignoring the Ninth Commandment again.

You need to learn the basics of how science is done. You keep making obviously incorrect statements even after you have been corrected. How can we help you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing I have noticed is that no one has really addressed the topic of this thread.

What do our creationists think about the idea that Koalas may have been "blowed up" to Australia by a volcano?

The idea made it into one of your sources. Not ours.

 

[LastSeven]

It's a ridiculous notion, obviously. What's even more ridiculous is your insinuation that one believer speaks for all. There are obviously many disagreements within Christianity, just as there are disagreements within every belief system, even science.

 

[biggles53]

One thing I have noticed is that no one has really addressed the topic of this thread.

What do our creationists think about the idea that Koalas may have been "blowed up" to Australia by a volcano?

The idea made it into one of your sources. Not ours.

An exhibition of the childish level of thinking some of them employ...

After all, why would their god go to the trouble of 'whooshing' them over here on a volcanic explosion...? Why wouldn't it just click its fingers and have them appear wherever it wanted them...?

A clear case of 'magician's overreach' I would think...!

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a ridiculous notion, obviously. What's even more ridiculous is your insinuation that one believer speaks for all. There are obviously many disagreements within Christianity, just as there are disagreements within every belief system, even science.

Thank you for being honest on that one point. Now if you could be honest about other claims of creationists we might get somewhere.

 

[biggles53]

It's a ridiculous notion, obviously. What's even more ridiculous is your insinuation that one believer speaks for all. There are obviously many disagreements within Christianity, just as there are disagreements within every belief system, even science.

One believer doesn't speak for all, but this demonstrates a clear commonality of all believers...that one must start with a foregone conclusion, and then somehow make reality fit that conclusion...!

And science is NOT a belief system.....by definition..!

 

[AV1611VET]

QV this video from 01:25 to 01:40

1. It shows the landscape after the Flood: totally dead and ruined. No flora at all. And yet Noah sent a dove out three times.

The first time she returned to the Ark because she couldn't find a place to rest; but one week later -- that's seven days -- she came back with an olive leaf "plukt off." Just how fast do olive trees grow without divine assistance?

The third time Noah sent her out, she didn't come back.

Why? it was probably a paradise out there ... a second Garden of Eden, so to speak.

2. The video then mentions koalas getting to Australia, drawing a line from Point A, where the Ark rested, to Point B, Australia, over ... guess what? continents! And the line is drawn in such a way as it traverses the earth "clear to the other side," giving those who don't know their Bibles the idea that Australia was much farther away than it really was at the time.

It's no wonder non-believers like this video: only scientists can mess Genesis 8 up this bad.

 

[Strathos]

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.

Creationism says a lot of different things, depending on which creationist you talk to. And most of those things they say contradict one another.

 

[LastSeven]

Thank you for being honest on that one point. Now if you could be honest about other claims of creationists we might get somewhere.

What have I not been honest about?

 

[LastSeven]

And science is NOT a belief system.....by definition..!

Perhaps, but there are still disagreements within the scientific community, which is the point I was making.

 

[LastSeven]

Science has already disproved the idea of an Adam and Eve or Noah's Ark.

Science has disproved nothing from scripture. In fact, as archaeological discoveries continue around the world, science continues to validate scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What have I not been honest about?

You have been more honest than most creationists. I don't think that I have caught you in a lie yet, and that is very very good. To date there has only been one other creationist who in even the short time that we have bantered back and forth has not lied for Jesus. So two fairly honest creationists out of hundreds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science has disproved nothing from scripture. In fact, as archaeological discoveries continue around the world, science continues to validate scripture.

Then you are saying that Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are not from scripture. Last time I checked they seemed to be there.

ETA: Instead of a baseless declaration an honest person would have asked how science has disproved Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark.

 

[Lethe]

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

That's a pretty stunning error in reasoning. It completely omits the idea that we might discover nothing whatsoever that lines up with the notion of creation.
Which might just be why the vast majority of physicists and biologists are atheists.

 

[LastSeven]

That's a pretty stunning error in reasoning. It completely omits the idea that we might discover nothing whatsoever that lines up with the notion of creation.
Which might just be why the vast majority of physicists and biologists are atheists.

You have to understand that I am looking at this argument from a creationists point of view. In other words, from my point of view, everything that science has discovered to date lines up perfectly with the notion of creation as everything was created.

 

[LastSeven]

ETA: Instead of a baseless declaration an honest person would have asked how science has disproved Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark.

I would ask that question if I did not unceasingly believe that scripture is true. From my point of view there can not be any proof to the contrary, so for me to say that science has disproven nothing is about as honest as I can be.

 

[biggles53]

Perhaps, but there are still disagreements within the scientific community, which is the point I was making.

That's how science works...existing understandings are challenged on the basis of new knowledge....if there weren't those 'disagreements' science would never progress our understanding of the world....

 

[biggles53]

Science has disproved nothing from scripture. In fact, as archaeological discoveries continue around the world, science continues to validate scripture.

That simply isn't true....every time that we have encountered a conflict between a scientific understanding of the world and that proposed by the scriptures, science has clearly won out.......every time...

We no longer blame disease on 'demons'...
We understand that the earth is not flat...
We know that the earth orbits the sun...
We realise that coloured goats are not produced from parents that stare at striped sticks (!)...
We know that bats are not birds and that insects don't have 4 legs...

And so on.....