Part 2, an attack on creationism (Creator, Earth, tradition, beliefs)

[mingmty]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

It's wrong and dangerous to believe what you want to believe. We should strive to believe what's true, weather we like it or not.

Totally agree. We should aim to understand the real nature of the universe, no to be very "respectful" and live in deceive and lies, we should been trying to improve our knowledge and a good way of doing this is discussing ideas.

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

What is your purpose here other then attacking other people's beliefs?

He is not attacking the beliefs aggressively, he is only saying that these beliefs can't be true, and he explains why does he believe this; what else do you expect us to talk about? Rabbits? The E! channel?

[Polaris]

The problem is that science can never prove that God's hand is not involved in the natural processes that make up the creation. As one who loves science and scientific discovery I view science as a means by which we come to understand more intimately the laws and processes by which God governs his creations.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

What's the point? Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe?

Why would you want to believe stuff that isn't true? And how would you go about doing that?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Polaris

The problem is that science can never prove that God's hand is not involved in the natural processes that make up the creation. As one who loves science and scientific discovery I view science as a means by which we come to understand more intimately the laws and processes by which God governs his creations.

Although I am atheist, I think this is a very logical and reasonable view, and the one that makes sense for Christians to adopt. This poses some theological problems, but they pale compared to the scientific problems engendered by YEC.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by Polaris

The problem is that science can never prove that God's hand is not involved in the natural processes that make up the creation. As one who loves science and scientific discovery I view science as a means by which we come to understand more intimately the laws and processes by which God governs his creations.

Science can't prove that Nature isn't controlled by faeries, elves, sprites and nymphs, either, nor can Thor be ruled out of various violent meteorological phenomena.
There is equal evidence all around.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Polaris

The problem is that science can never prove that God's hand is not involved in the natural processes that make up the creation. As one who loves science and scientific discovery I view science as a means by which we come to understand more intimately the laws and processes by which God governs his creations.

Unless you believe that God only set the universe in motion and has kept it's hands off ever since, doesn't the fact that we have come to understand these natural laws and processes speak against the existence of any God? After all, how could we derive equations describing the world around us if God was constantly interfering and mucking up the data? Would Newton have derived his three laws of motion if God had decided to perform a miracle and made the apple fall up instead of down?

[Gabreil]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

“The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. 5 M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. 6 Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers..7 It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.”

No were in the Last revelation of God does it say the whole of the earth was
under water, there are scholars who interpret certain verse’s to mean a specific
Area ie India or other places.

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Originally Posted by Pinecone

I almost feel sorry for Young Earth creationists when it comes to the flood. Seeing them try to defend it is sad, I can imagine how frustrating it must be for them.

This is so basic, if there were little kids throughing stones,
deluded into thinking they could hit the stars what would you think?
this is how i feel about your statment.

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Note every species could possibly have fit in the ark, the amount of food needed to keep them alive would have been staggering, most of the species would have died out from not being in the correct climate and lastly, how the hell did all the marsupials end up in Australia? There, a very quick criticism of Noah’s ark, I could go into more detail, but I don’t see much point. Back to the creationist arguments.

And as for the second opinion if the whole of the earth was under water,
then Noah wouldn’t have to get every creature because, the fish can survive
under water, and the birds could of resided on tree tops and insects.
I go with the first opinion because God destroyed people for there
sins, why should He Flood the Antarctica or other places of the earth?

And the believers KNOW God Almighty has Power over All Things.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by beckysoup61

What's the point? Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe?

Some beliefs are dangerous, Becky.

I'm not saying that an individual's choice to believe creationism over what we know of science is inherently dangerous, it isn't. But combine enough people with such a belief and parade it as a replacement for actual science, and try to force it on others, and then yes, it does become dangerous.

People have had all sorts of delusional ideas, from the belief that blacks are inferior to Mormons aren't really Christians to the idea that "inbreeding" with Jews ruined a "race." Those ideas are not dangerous when they remain in the realm of the individual's brain. The problem is they get translated into action, and I hardly need tell you about the results.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Gabreil

No were in the Last revelation of God does it say the whole of the earth was
under water, there are scholars who interpret certain verse’s to mean a specific
Area ie India or other places.

And as for the second opinion if the whole of the earth was under water,
then Noah wouldn’t have to get every creature because, the fish can survive
under water, and the birds could of resided on tree tops and insects.
I go with the first opinion because God destroyed people for there
sins, why should He Flood the Antarctica or other places of the earth?

What "Last revelation of God" are you referring to? Because in the Old Testament, which is what people are usually referring to when discussing Noah's Flood, it clearly says the whole of Earth was under water and that all the creatures on Earth were destroyed except those on the ark.

Originally Posted by Genesis 7:17-23

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all manki