Creationist vs Logic, errr, Geologist

[ill_be_ur_pal]

In the perfect forum of a debate on evolution, Noah's flood, and geology, by which this forum is a fantasy football message board, came my friend's Steve hypothesis that Noah's flood was caused by the meteor that killed the dinosaurs. He also took a critical view on geologist. So I relayed the post to my geology friend Tim(Fridge) who is also a

Comments

Re: Response

[ill_be_ur_pal]

"Two responses to this. First, what may be commonly accepted as scientific fact is constantly re-evaluated - to think we have a correct and complete understanding of how old the earth is or how it formed would be premature. We used to think the world was flat, we used to think the sub revolved around us, and we used to think the way to treat blood born diseases was to drain people of their blood. Just because the science currently established leads you to believe in one theory doesn't mean that God meant to lead you to believe that, it just means that that is what has been currently accepted. Under this logic, every initial and incomplete discovery would have to be absolutely correct because we were "lead" to discover it."

And religion used to believe that a dung beatle pushed the sun across the sky, but that is besides the point. The three instances you mentioned were not science and were devoid of the scientific method. In fact all of those myths were disproven by Science. Proving anything as fact is impossible and some doubt should always exist in anything in science or life. For example, we can not prove that the apple will fall downward everytime we drop it because gravity is a theory. Just because we have observed it 100% time does not mean it'll do it again, if i went to a basketball game and saw somebody make 5/5 free throws, that does not mean he will make the next million. So we are really sure that the apple will fall, but we can't prove it. As more evidence arises, we can feel more comfortable in our theories, but never 100%. The flatearth (which is supported by Revelation 7:1 and other verses) and such theories had little evidence and have low confidence, while current theories have tested correlations and have much higher confidence, it's not 100%.

So you're saying science is not proven by what people thought thousands of years ago, but you are so ready to believe in a religion with no other proof other than what people thought thousands of years ago. Justifying religion is like shooting an arrow at a wall and painting a bullseye around it. So lets say there was a flood despite the science against it, why is the christian flood more plausible then the floods in other religions such as the flood in greek mythology? We could interpret evidence to "justify" most, if not all religions with a little imagination.

Re: Brian

[ill_be_ur_pal]

"Proving anything as fact is impossible and some doubt should always exist in anything in science or life"

Well that's not true - I think you worded that one a bit too liberally.

"Just because we have observed it 100% time does not mean it'll do it again"

Exactly. So why then, when radioisotope dating has proven itself to be far less than 100% correct, do you take it as fact? I'll answer this question in a minute.

"but you are so ready to believe in a religion with no other proof"

I wouldn't say there is no proof of it. Jesus existed as a real person and his body was - at the very least - not in the cave on the third day. Since the vast majority of Jews despised Jesus and his message at the time, they would have loved nothing more than to discredit his ressurection. At the slightest hint of the body being moved, taken away, or any other form of trickery, they would have pounced upon it to dismiss it. His existence wouldn't be remembered at all, they would have wanted to wipe out any memories of him. Instead, what happened was that Christianity spread quite rapidly after his ressurection. That may not "prove" the ressurection, but it proves the body was gone and that there were no signs of the body being moved.

But this is all beside the point. I believe in what I do because of faith, same as you. You believe in the earth being billions of years old and Darwin's theory of evolution because of faith. Neither is proven and neither can be recreated. What's interesting to note is that my explanation is backed more in current scientific knowledge and history than your's though.

Re: Brian

[ill_be_ur_pal]

""Proving anything as fact is impossible and some doubt should always exist in anything in science or life"

Well that's not true - I think you worded that one a bit too liberally."

Good come, "not true". You should refer to that quote from Decartes that you totally butchered, "i think, therefore i am." It means that the only thing you can be sure about is yourself, because you can think, everything else can be false. IE Alice+Wonderland that we could all be in an alien's dream/lsd trip. Or more modern, Matrix style jack in the back of your head false reality. Besides MY own existence, you can not prove anything. You and your king(christians) thrive on this. You use faith(ie i can believe what i want) to justify things in the absence of logic. EVERYTHING can be doubted.

Re: Brian

[ill_be_ur_pal]

Jesus is not proven to exist, many, many sources debate this issue. How do yo know he exists? How do you know that his body was even in that cave? If he did exist, he never said that he was or was the son of god, all those verses have been proven forged. And Christianity did not spread rapidly, it was over 300 years when Emperor Constantine became Christian and then made it a privileged religion in Rome that it took off. Then it spread by the sword.

Are you telling me that in more modern times with religions started by convicted con artists (Mormons) and a sci fi writer(scientology) that christianity couldnt have been fabricated?

Second, i don't believe in anything. I don't BELIEVE in evolution, but it is by far the most logical conclusion we have and it has my bet. Ditto for why I think the Earth is billions of years old.