Does Creation Itself Prove That God Did It?

[Skeptical]

Hello, all. I'm new to the forum and as you can tell by my screen name, I'm a bit of a skeptic, that is, a bit skeptical about religious beliefs. Therefore, I wanted to have a debate/discussion with Christians about whether or not creation itself actually proves the creative powers of God. And a Bible verse that came to mind says that creation itself makes that self-evident at Romans 1:20:

https://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

New International Version
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.

Young's Literal Translation
for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable;

However, it would seem as if some things found in nature would demonstrate that God's invisible qualities and divine nature cannot be clearly seen and understood from what has been made since the creation of the world. And I'm not an expert in science, but I was going to bring up the example of the ring of fire and the Pangea and show this short little video:



But while looking for that video, I came across this 23 minute video and I had never heard anything like it before in my life:



I mean, there were a lot of assumptions and extrapolations, and a lot of things said that were not even remotely said in the Bible. And then there's the whole thing about how the all the dinosaurs were living in different continents before Noah's flood occurrenced. Because, I mean, what would have happened with all that if Eve hadn't have bitten that apple? Plus, one can only conclude that God decided to subject all of humankind to the horrors of the ring of fire by unleashing the flood of Noah's day because apparently, that was the best option that he could think of? It all just doesn't make sense to me. But does anyone else have any comments?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #1]

It all just doesn't make sense to me. But does anyone else have any comments?

Do some reading on this forum you'll find a huge number of comments and topics, as you might expect. Creation myths are plentiful and the one in Genesis is just one of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

As far as I know, not one of them has any scientific or observational support, although many were developed so long ago the science we know today did not exist. It made sense in those times to attribute things too complicated to explain to god beings of various kinds, and "creation" is just one of those (along with weather phenomena, famines, diseases, the nature movements of celestial bodies, etc.). We now know better.

[Purple Knight]

It's definitely counterintuitive that there should be something, and not nothing.

[boatsnguitars]

Hello, all. I'm new to the forum and as you can tell by my screen name, I'm a bit of a skeptic, that is, a bit skeptical about religious beliefs. Therefore, I wanted to have a debate/discussion with Christians about whether or not creation itself actually proves the creative powers of God. And a Bible verse that came to mind says that creation itself makes that self-evident at Romans 1:20:

https://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

New International Version
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.

Young's Literal Translation
for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable;

However, it would seem as if some things found in nature would demonstrate that God's invisible qualities and divine nature cannot be clearly seen and understood from what has been made since the creation of the world. And I'm not an expert in science, but I was going to bring up the example of the ring of fire and the Pangea and show this short little video:



But while looking for that video, I came across this 23 minute video and I had never heard anything like it before in my life:



I mean, there were a lot of assumptions and extrapolations, and a lot of things said that were not even remotely said in the Bible. And then there's the whole thing about how the all the dinosaurs were living in different continents before Noah's flood occurrenced. Because, I mean, what would have happened with all that if Eve hadn't have bitten that apple? Plus, one can only conclude that God decided to subject all of humankind to the horrors of the ring of fire by unleashing the flood of Noah's day because apparently, that was the best option that he could think of? It all just doesn't make sense to me. But does anyone else have any comments?

Welcome. In asking Theists these questions, I hope you are ready to have a whole lot of more junk science dumped on you. The problem is Theists only care about science if they can use it to support their religious beliefs, so they will gladly shed any science if they need to, so don't hold your breath for a rigorous scientific debate.

[William]

[Replying to Skeptical in post #1]

What always interested me about the image of Pangea is how fetal-like it looks.

[brunumb]

[Replying to William in post #5]

That's only because the man with the big nose got in the way of the photo.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #5]

That's only because the man with the big nose got in the way of the photo.

Wat photo?

It appears to be a case of reverse engineering, and being fetal in likeness, isn't necessarily saying it is human fetal...perhaps it is a lizard fetus, what with the big tongue/sticky-outty thingy...the "nose" might be a "mouth" - strange forms are in abundance hereabouts...

[brunumb]

[Replying to William in post #7]

Did you see the blue face of a man with a big nose in your picture?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #7]

Did you see the blue face of a man with a big nose in your picture?

Yep. I thought you were referring to the irony of there being no camera's way back then.

Did you see the resemblance to the fetus?

[brunumb]

[Replying to William in post #7]

Did you see the blue face of a man with a big nose in your picture?

Yep. I thought you were referring to the irony of there being no camera's way back then.

Did you see the resemblance to the fetus?

Um, no, sorry. Just the funny blue man.