The Creationist Explanaton

[AV1611VET]

Christianity misapplied and misinterpreted can also have tragic results. I don't see you complaining about that though?

That's unbelievers' job.

I don't see academians complaining about misapplied and misinterpreted science either.

I see them sweeping things under the carpet and blaming everyone else for their gaffs, but not themselves.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't see academians complaining about misapplied and misinterpreted science either.

Utter rubbish, even for you.

You "don't see it" because you haven't bothered looking.... and you say science is myopic?

 

[Brightmoon]

The USA didn’t allow them to buy helium . Germany had no natural deposits of the radioactive elements that produced helium as a product of decay

 

[AV1611VET]

The USA didn’t allow them to buy helium.

So they went ahead and used hydrogen anyway?

Did they have a disclaimer on their tickets?

WARNING: This ship uses hydrogen for lift. Enjoy the trip at your own risk.

 

[Brightmoon]

the patriarchal based misogyny you’re going to blame on unbelievers? The abuse of science that has lasted for the last 400 years you’re going to blame on unbelievers? I was going to write LOL but the stupid evil things done in the name of religion aren’t funny.

Somehow I got the wrong quote sorry

 

[Brightmoon]

So they went ahead and used hydrogen anyway?

Did they have a disclaimer on their tickets?

WARNING: This ship uses hydrogen for lift. Enjoy the trip at your own risk.

. Some of our technology is dangerous. Duh! We try to make it as safe as possible but things happen. The Hindenburg was struck by lightning

 

[Speedwell]

So they went ahead and used hydrogen anyway?

Did they have a disclaimer on their tickets?

WARNING: This ship uses hydrogen for lift. Enjoy the trip at your own risk.

Hydrogen was used because it was cheaper, readily available and provided more lift than helium. The passengers were fully informed and given safety instruction. The real danger and serious engineering error was that the skin of the airship was doped with cellulose acetate (highly inflammable) mixed with powdered aluminum (explosive) which caught fire first. The hydrogen didn't ignite until the gas cells were burned through from the outside.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Hindenburg was struck by lightning

No, it wasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hydrogen was used because it was cheaper, readily available and provided more lift than helium. The passengers were fully informed and given safety instruction. The real danger and serious engineering error was that the skin of the airship was doped with cellulose acetate (highly inflammable) mixed with powdered aluminum (explosive) which caught fire first. The hydrogen didn't ignite until the gas cells were burned through from the outside.

You're saying it would have crashed anyway?

 

[Brightmoon]

You're saying it would have crashed anyway?

We’re saying that despite your attempts to derail , creationists can’t explain natural phenomena with their pseudoscience fantasy explanations while science explains it very well.

 

[AV1611VET]

We’re saying that despite your attempts to derail , creationists can’t explain natural phenomena with their pseudoscience ...

Then they should let them explain it with your pseudoscience, shouldn't they?

I have a set of heuristics I live by:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[Kenny'sID]

the patriarchal based misogyny you’re going to blame on unbelievers? The abuse of science that has lasted for the last 400 years you’re going to blame on unbelievers? I was going to write LOL but the stupid evil things done in the name of religion aren’t funny.

Somehow I got the wrong quote sorry

No idea what all that means, but if it's directed at me, and you want a reply you'll need to help me out a bit.

FWIW, if you have any questions on how to reply to a post, so we know who you are replying to, just ask, posters are generally very helpful. It's something we all had to ask about or figure out so not biggie.

 

[Brightmoon]

If the Bible says x and science says y, I go with y . Because at that point there’s evidence that the Bible is wrong ( usually dead wrong!

I’m still waiting for a coherent creationist explanation of natural phenomena

 

[Brightmoon]

No idea what all that means, but if it's directed at me, and you want a reply you'll need to help me out a bit.

FWIW, if you have any questions on how to reply to a post, so we know who you are replying to, just ask, posters are generally very helpful. It's something we all had to ask about or figure out so not biggie.

Um what are you talking about ?

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m still waiting for a coherent creationist explanation of natural phenomena.

Natural phenomena is natural phenomena.

It is nature obeying the laws of God.

Or, if you prefer, it is nature obeying the laws of nature that God created.

Deuteronomy 11:14 That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.

 

[Brightmoon]

Natural phenomena is natural phenomena.

It is nature obeying the laws of God.

Or, if you prefer, it is nature obeying the laws of nature that God created.
(Snip).

The nature that God created isn’t the one in the Bible. I do understand that you believe that it is but unfortunately creationism is akin to a rather silly fantasy or fictional account.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Man, this thread is just off the rails.

So, it is safe to say that creationism does not offer an explicit explanation for specific biological cases. That neither creationism nor ID have any chance whatsoever of supplanting evolutionary theory as the best explanation of biological diversity we have?

Case closed? Anything else relevant to add?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Science misapplied and misinterpreted can have tragic results.

How was science misapplied or misinterpreted in this instance? Please be specific.

 

[Jimmy D]

Man, this thread is just off the rails.

What else can they offer?

So, it is safe to say that creationism does not offer an explicit explanation for specific biological cases. That neither creationism nor ID have any chance whatsoever of supplanting evolutionary theory as the best explanation of biological diversity we have?

Case closed? Anything else relevant to add?

 

[AV1611VET]

The nature that God created isn’t the one in the Bible.

That is correct.

The nature that God created in Genesis 1 wasn't subject to death.

I do understand that you believe that it is ...

Then you assume incorrectly, unless you're talking about after the Fall, when God created a new nature.

God says ...

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Everything was good prior to the Fall; and [necessary] evils after the Fall.