Attention "Creationists"

[POI]

In the never-ending/perpetual 'god debate', Christians will often quote the following from Romans 1:20 (i.e.):

"20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Meaning, we atheists know 'god' exists because of the observed 'creation' all around us. We instead choose to suppress such obvious 'observation', for this or that reason. Well, I'm here to challenge this assertion from the Bible.

Many Christians need to really think about what 'creation' actually means? Meaning, I can 'create' stuff. Running water can 'create' stuff. Erosion can 'create' stuff. Pressure and time can 'create' stuff. Etc....

If I 'create' something, in reality, I'm instead repurposing or rearranging material. But it is still intentional. A 'mind' purposed it's reconfiguration.

If nature 'creates' something, like the Grand Canyon, Mount Everest, Yosemite, it was likely not reconfigured from a 'mind'. It's not intentional.

For debate:

1. Can you Christians distinguish the difference between both intentional and unintentional "creation" -- (in every case)?

Example 1: A straight row of almond trees was designed by a 'mindful' tree farmer. A random array of almond trees, in the middle of an uninhabited area, was likely not placed there 'mindfully' or intentionally.

Example 2: 99.9999% of the 'universe', in which we know about, is unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 3: The majority of the earth itself is also unihabitable for humans -- god's favorite 'creation'.

Example 4: An intentional mind 'created' humans, where an airway and a food pathway share the same plumbing, where a sewage system and sex organs share the same pathway, and also where a urine pathway routes directly through the prostate?

2. If you can distinguish the difference between intentional and unintentional "creation", is the author of Romans 1:20 still correct? If yes, why yes?

3. If 'science' is correct, and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead only repurposed; this means there exists no reason to invent or assert a god in charge of 'creation', right?

[Wootah]

Yes, faith can be used any many differing contexts. But your Bible also expresses using this methodology, instead of evidence; and labels doing so a virtue (i.e.):

"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So yea, faith can be interchanged with blind trust, hope, confidence, etc etc.... Okay, back on topic now...

Yes so if I hope to go on a holiday then I have not yet seen the holiday.

Oh, but I have seen holidays before. I haven't seen God or Heaven.

Yes, they are a form of rest.

So heaven, my faith in heaven, is something I have not seen but something I hope for. It scales up. And quite frankly the hope of heaven changes me in the moment now which is more important to me right now than heaven later.

That's it.

[Wootah]

So the mountains, Half Dome, etc, were created by god?

Yeah, I think so.

Okay, let's start with mountains. "Earth science" states the following:

"Mountains form where two continental plates collide. Since both plates have a similar thickness and weight, neither one will sink under the other. Instead, they crumple and fold until the rocks are forced up to form a mountain range. As the plates continue to collide, mountains will get taller and taller."

So, I ask you now... Do you believe:

A) such mountains were already formed, and have not changed, and thus, "earth science" is completely wrong?
B) God is in charge of plate tectonics, which causes mountains to form or get taller?
C) something else-- (please explain)?

A (without the completely wrong bit). First cause is all I am arguing.

When God intervenes He is doing B. There can be something else C such as the Devil or other spiritual agents but I think we can stick with A and B for our purposes.

[Wootah]

So the mountains, Half Dome, etc, were created by god?

Yeah, I think so.

Okay, let's start with mountains. "Earth science" states the following:

"Mountains form where two continental plates collide. Since both plates have a similar thickness and weight, neither one will sink under the other. Instead, they crumple and fold until the rocks are forced up to form a mountain range. As the plates continue to collide, mountains will get taller and taller."

So, I ask you now... Do you believe:

A) such mountains were already formed, and have not changed, and thus, "earth science" is completely wrong?
B) God is in charge of plate tectonics, which causes mountains to form or get taller?
C) something else-- (please explain)?

Normally, these would be rhetorical questions, just to establish debating parameters. But, while our Creationist pals would presumably not claim that the earth and not the sun is the centre of the solar system or that the earth is flat with a dome over it (indeed, they vehemently deny that this is the cosmic model the Bible is based on) they deny the pretty undeniable fossil stratification evidence for evolution of lifeforms over a long time, and the geological evidence (measurable today, just as we measure rainfall or coastline change) of tectonic plate movement and not even really to maintain Genesis, let alone religious faith, because if Bible apologists can explain away 7 days by dividing the age of the universe into 7 or dismiss the sun created after the earth with the cloud cover apologetic, which is still creationism and Genesis -literalism not because it happened that way but it appeared to Moses (who wasn't there, but that never bothers the Genesis -apologists) as though that was what happened, they can surely maintain Biblefaith with accepting deep time geology, evolution and no actual Flood (1). There are even Christian evolutionists and Bible apologists who wave away Genesis as 'Metaphorical' (but still somehow True, mind you ) so in fact Christian or BibleFaith doesn't depend on Genesis - literalism, but it has become an article of faith which may differ, chapter house to chapter house, and denying science where it conflicts with Genesis (but carefully not so it would make them look silly by claiming the earth is flat and the sun was actually made after the earth) is a dogmatic shibboleth rather than an argument about anything that doctrinally matters. The argument is actually pointless, irrelevant and half gone, but it is a declaration and statement of Faith, rather than a proper evidence -based argument. Or at least, that's my Theory, and no amount of evidence will ever change my mind about that.

(1) indeed, haven't we already seen posters here who say that Biblical Global flood was actually limited and while giving rise to the legends, that scuppers the Bible -claim of why there was a Flood at all. It's hard not to conclude that propping up the Bible as credible history is even more important that maintaining the religious Dogma of it.

You know we live like the world is flat and there is a dome over it. The Bible is deeply true regardless of whether and how or if it actually happened. Just like a story can impart wisdom and truth.

I think the issue that you guys don't recognise is that we see an object and atheism or more correctly scepticism looks behind it. A human being becomes a bunch of elements that aren't worth more than 10 bucks (including inflation).

I don't think the science is settled by a long shot. Let's give it a few hundred years at least.

[POI]

Yes, faith can be used any many differing contexts. But your Bible also expresses using this methodology, instead of evidence; and labels doing so a virtue (i.e.):

"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

So yea, faith can be interchanged with blind trust, hope, confidence, etc etc.... Okay, back on topic now...

Yes so if I hope to go on a holiday then I have not yet seen the holiday.

Oh, but I have seen holidays before. I haven't seen God or Heaven.

Yes, they are a form of rest.

So heaven, my faith in heaven, is something I have not seen but something I hope for. It scales up. And quite frankly the hope of heaven changes me in the moment now which is more important to me right now than heaven later.

That's it.

Sure, but you've probably been on holiday before, or know people who have, and can prove they've been on holiday.

In regards to hoping for a magical eternal celestial vacation, (heaven), I'm not sure you have ever been there, or know of anyone who has come back from such a place to tell you about it... Wanting or wishing for something to be true, does not make it true.

You know going on holiday is a true thing, Heaven, not-so-much...

[POI]

You know we live like the world is flat and there is a dome over it. The Bible is deeply true regardless of whether and how or if it actually happened. Just like a story can impart wisdom and truth.

I think the issue that you guys don't recognise is that we see an object and atheism or more correctly scepticism looks behind it. A human being becomes a bunch of elements that aren't worth more than 10 bucks (including inflation).

I don't think the science is settled by a long shot. Let's give it a few hundred years at least.

And in regards to the "flat earth" analogy, I may not know the exact shape of earth.... But this does not mean I cannot still rule out certain answers. Meaning, a flat earth can still logically be ruled out as an option. It would be nice to know what exactly the authors meant, when they wrote what they wrote. But we can't, because they are dead. So go ahead and practice apologetics 101.

[POI]

So the mountains, Half Dome, etc, were created by god?

Yeah, I think so.

Okay, let's start with mountains. "Earth science" states the following:

"Mountains form where two continental plates collide. Since both plates have a similar thickness and weight, neither one will sink under the other. Instead, they crumple and fold until the rocks are forced up to form a mountain range. As the plates continue to collide, mountains will get taller and taller."

So, I ask you now... Do you believe:

A) such mountains were already formed, and have not changed, and thus, "earth science" is completely wrong?
B) God is in charge of plate tectonics, which causes mountains to form or get taller?
C) something else-- (please explain)?

A (without the completely wrong bit). First cause is all I am arguing.

When God intervenes He is doing B. There can be something else C such as the Devil or other spiritual agents but I think we can stick with A and B for our purposes.

Okay, let's dig a little deeper. Let's look at Mount Everest. Would you agree or disagree that Mt. Everest is ~60 million years old?

-- If agreed, this would mean when God "created" the earth, ~4.6 billion years ago, there was no hint of this mountain?
-- If disagreed, how old do you think the earth is? Or, why has the whole of 'earth science' got it so dang 'wrong about the ages'? And how do you know? And why aren't you informing them of their error, by giving them the correct data?

[Wootah]

You know we live like the world is flat and there is a dome over it. The Bible is deeply true regardless of whether and how or if it actually happened. Just like a story can impart wisdom and truth.

I think the issue that you guys don't recognise is that we see an object and atheism or more correctly scepticism looks behind it. A human being becomes a bunch of elements that aren't worth more than 10 bucks (including inflation).

I don't think the science is settled by a long shot. Let's give it a few hundred years at least.

And in regards to the "flat earth" analogy, I may not know the exact shape of earth.... But this does not mean I cannot still rule out certain answers. Meaning, a flat earth can still logically be ruled out as an option. It would be nice to know what exactly the authors meant, when they wrote what they wrote. But we can't, because they are dead. So go ahead and practice apologetics 101.

Mostly we live like the world is flat. Getting from A to B requires very little use of the roundness of the world.

So go ahead and practice apologetics 101.

I don't know if you notice how much of your posts is snark.

[Wootah]

Okay, let's dig a little deeper. Let's look at Mount Everest. Would you agree or disagree that Mt. Everest is ~60 million years old?

-- If agreed, this would mean when God "created" the earth, ~4.6 billion years ago, there was no hint of this mountain?
-- If disagreed, how old do you think the earth is? Or, why has the whole of 'earth science' got it so dang 'wrong about the ages'? And how do you know? And why aren't you informing them of their error, by giving them the correct data?

From a scientific/evolutionary point of view, I believe so.
From a scientific/creationist point of view, I somewhat suspect the world underwent violent transformations during the flood.

I do also believe in a created beginning with a universe and our world with trees, mountains, oceans, rivers.

As we understand more about evolution and how many steps are involved, we keep pushing out the universe's age. In fairness, evolution is distinctly falsifiable if the universe's age is less than the age required for things to evolve. Of course, there can be rapid evolution as well. It's a win/win.

As for me personally, I made some wrong choices and did not realise how important studying and excelling at science would be. That ship has sailed (off the edge of the world so to speak). I guess the world is such a clown world these days that gives me confidence that something is wrong in the sciences.

There are people who argue this stuff that seems credentialed - I don't know.

[POI]

Mostly we live like the world is flat. Getting from A to B requires very little use of the roundness of the world.

If I ask any logical person on the street... "hey, what is the shape of the earth? They are not going to answer "flat". So no, you are incorrect. Any logical person, with a 5th grade education, will know that the curvature is quite subtle.

I don't know if you notice how much of your posts is snark.

Do you have any idea why?

[Wootah]

Mostly we live like the world is flat. Getting from A to B requires very little use of the roundness of the world.

If I ask any logical person on the street... "hey, what is the shape of the earth? They are not going to answer "flat". So no, you are incorrect. Any logical person, with a 5th grade education, will know that the curvature is quite subtle.

I don't know if you notice how much of your posts is snark.

Do you have any idea why?

Everyone knows it is round. But in our lived experience it may as well be flat.

Yeah, I think you aren't used to being on a civil debating website or taking that seriously.