Creationism = Science Illiteracy

[Nomaster]

*removed*

[Omnitheo]

It wasn't that long ago that scientists thought the Earth was flat, even though there was no proof to back it up.

Stop propagating this myth. Scientists have never thought the earth was flat. 3000 years ago in Ancient Greece, philosophers noticed that ships sailing across the Mediterranean disappeared from the bottoms, with the mast last to disappear. They were able to use math (the same math taught in middle school) to calculate the curvature of the earth to remarkable accuracy.

The only people who ever thought the earth was flat, then or today, were the ignorant or uneducated.

[Glacier]

The myth of the flat earth was invented in 1828 by the American writer, Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle), when he published a book entitled "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus." It was a mixture of fact and fiction, to which he admitted as such.

But other writers picked up on this theme, namely Letronne, who in 1834, falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, believed in a flat Earth as a means of claiming Christianity = Science Illiteracy. His work has been repeatedly cited as 'reputable' ever since, and thus the myth continues.

[fluffy]

People do love a good story though, don't they ?

[Bsuds]

People do love a good story though, don't they ?

It's just too bad that so many can't separate fact from fiction.

[youjustcomplain]

According to the Bible, God gathered the animals in, so it can be assumed that he lead them away through safe passage afterwards.

You're going to assume that you know what god did? It's not even obvious that god exists in the first place. I'm unclear why anyone would take the bible as truth then bend its words to be more believable and still require us to make assumptions where rather critical details were left out. There are valid concerns as to the likelihood of the bible's accuracy.

Again though, I don't agree that Creationism = Science Illiteracy.

[rustled]

I've often thought "some form of divine intervention" actually makes more sense than "entirely by cosmic accident".

[youjustcomplain]

Well clearly there was divine guidance. If there is no divine power, then obviously it never happened. If there is, then obviously it could have happened.

No. It's absolutely not clear that there was divine guidance. Unless you mean, "clearly, in my opinion, there was divine guidance".

Lets work under the premise that there is no god. Many of us do this every day.

If there is no divine power, then obviously it never happened.
I would say that it almost definitely didn't happen, with or without a god. There is no evidence to support it.

If there is, then obviously it could have happened.
Yes, if there is a god, anything is possible. But this statement says nothing.

[youjustcomplain]

I've often thought "some form of divine intervention" actually makes more sense than "entirely by cosmic accident".

Many have thought this. But, not only is there absolutely no evidence to support this, but what we think is real and what is real are not the same thing. Which is to say, just because we sometimes think that divine intervention took place because the likelihood of the universe existing exactly the way it is, is just too unlikely, (borderline impossible) just means we sometimes prefer to invoke thoughts of magic when science can't explain something in full.

There is one fact that can't be escaped; the universe does exist exactly the way it is. Now, whether this existence is almost completely impossible or not without magic or divine intervention, it is still true that the universe exists. It also doesn't mean or suggest that magic or divine intervention took place. Without evidence to suggest magic, I'm not sure there is any reason to believe it was responsible.

[cliffy1]

"There is no matter without an observer." "Protons can be in several, if not hundreds, of places at the same time and only when observed do they exist in only one place." "We live in a holographic Universe." - Quantum Physics.

We live in a Matrix of our own making. What we experience as reality is nothing more than a holograph, a projection of our minds. What we see, taste, feel and hear are a holographic representation of the group consciousness of the human collective consciousness; a program that is instilled in our minds by those who have been indoctrinated before us - the Matrix. It can be changed. It requires nothing less than unplugging oneself from the Matrix. Once unplugged, the obviousness of it becomes very apparent. TV, newspapers, magazines, religions are all part of the programming process. You are much more than you have been led to believe. You are capable of much more than you have been told you can.

[Glacier]

You're going to assume that you know what god did? It's not even obvious that god exists in the first place. I'm unclear why anyone would take the bible as truth then bend its words to be more believable and still require us to make assumptions where rather critical details were left out. There are valid concerns as to the likelihood of the bible's accuracy.

Again though, I don't agree that Creationism = Science Illiteracy.

I never said I was assuming to know anything, nor was I making any claims about what did or didn't happen. I said that if the Creator of the Universe wants to gather up a bunch of animals, he's probably capable of doing it with his eyes shut and one hand behind his back.

[cliffy1]

I never said I was assuming to know anything, nor was I making any claims about what did or didn't happen. I said that if the Creator of the Universe wants to gather up a bunch of animals, he's probably capable of doing it with his eyes shut and one hand behind his back.

If it was an all powerful and omnipotent god/creator, why didn't it make it perfect so it didn't have to destroy it all? If it was omnipotent it should have known it would screw up. If it was only humanity that screwed up, then why destroy all the other life forms in retaliation? The whole story is so full of holes, it is amazing anybody believes it, even as a metaphor.

[youjustcomplain]

I never said I was assuming to know anything, nor was I making any claims about what did or didn't happen. I said that if the Creator of the Universe wants to gather up a bunch of animals, he's probably capable of doing it with his eyes shut and one hand behind his back.

But you see, we're not talking about the same thing are we? I don't believe there is a creator of the universe, nor do I believe that this creator could "want" to do anything or that he would have a sex. By the way, why is the creator a he? HE could be anything HE wanted, so why is HE a male? Why does HE have eyes or hands? This all suggests that your god was built in the image of man, not the other way around, unless, of course, you believe that "MAN" is the perfect creation possible and that god has this image and made male humans as a copy of himself?

[youjustcomplain]

If it was an all powerful and omnipotent god/creator, why didn't it make it perfect so it didn't have to destroy it all? If it was omnipotent it should have known it would screw up. If it was only humanity that screwed up, then why destroy all the other life forms in retaliation? The whole story is so full of holes, it is amazing anybody believes it, even as a metaphor.

Even further than that though Cliffy1, why did this god make us so selfish, vindictive, arrogant, violent, weak, fragile and why create us with such dull senses relative to other species?

[Glacier]

But you see, we're not talking about the same thing are we? I don't believe there is a creator of the universe, nor do I believe that this creator could "want" to do anything or that he would have a sex. By the way, why is the creator a he? HE could be anything HE wanted, so why is HE a male? Why does HE have eyes or hands? This all suggests that your god was built in the image of man, not the other way around, unless, of course, you believe that "MAN" is the perfect creation possible and that god has this image and made male humans as a copy of himself?

I'm not a theologian, plus that's outside the scope of this thread. In short, I mainly see are two arguments against the flood in this thread:
1) "That couldn't have happened because it would require supernatural intervention, and since the supernatural doesn't exist, it couldn't have happened."
2) "Since I'm conceiving God in my own image, this simply doesn't make sense because the God of my own image wouldn't do that."

Interesting arguments, but probably not related to this topic.