May 10th, 2013, 04:15 PM
I was thinking today about volcanoes, and i thought that its a wonderful argument againt young earth creationism, they can say that all dating methods are wrong, and that god stretched starlight and all that, but they cant deny the existence of volcanoes. Now, how will they explain them other then to say that god created them to kill humans, because they cant admit that the earth is old and that the core is still hot ?
You can't use a rational argument against creationism because the response will always be magic ("God did it like that for mysterious reasons").
Young Earth Creationist, fighting a volcano. I'd put money on the volcano unless the creationist has a fire extinguisher.
I suspect if you presented your volcano argument to a creationist forum website then you’ll lose in the creationist mind because “Science has been wrong before” and it’s “just a theory” or the ultimate magic trump card when you have them in a corner, “it was divine intervention!”.
I think it’s up to the creationist to back up their young earth claim using the scientific method that the earth is only 6000 years old. Obviously they haven’t done that because, If they had, I’d be calling them scientists and not creationists.
Can we still throw the young earthers INTO the active volcanoes?
Virgin Sacrifice: "I'm takin' it back."Originally Posted by seagypsy
Not defending young earth creationism, but I don't get the point of this thread. Wouldn't a hotter core mean a younger earth?
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm making the connection between volcanoes and young earth either.
Volcanoes aren't pointless or simply killers of man. They are a part of one of the most complex and integral parts of our Earth's ever-changing face. Why denigrate them to "killers"?
I think he is trying to say that because volcanoes and Humans were created at the same time then the only reason for them to co-exist is to kill people. Why build a destructive lava spewing hill when you're trying to make a nice safe place for humans to live? In the OPer's mind this is some kind of contradictory thinking, God didn't create the Earth to be a Shangri-la but a death chamber.
The OPer then tries to explain that because the core is still hot, there is no reason for YEC's to think the Earth is old, therefore the volcanoes are young also. Because of the youthful age of the Earth then one must contend that the volcanoes are only here for one reason, to kill us. Some fucking thing like that.
Earth as a death chamber huh? Well that would fall in line with the way most creator gods are described as far as their personality is concerned.I think he is trying to say that because volcanoes and Humans were created at the same time then the only reason for them to co-exist is to kill people. Why build a destructive lava spewing hill when you're trying to make a nice safe place for humans to live? In the OPer's mind this is some kind of contradictory thinking, God didn't create the Earth to be a Shangri-la but a death chamber.
The OPer then tries to explain that because the core is still hot, there is no reason for YEC's to think the Earth is old, therefore the volcanoes are young also. Because of the youthful age of the Earth then one must contend that the volcanoes are only here for one reason, to kill us. Some fucking thing like that.
It does seem to be something creator Gods are obsessive about. Create something they can destroy later, like all of life is just little plasticine moulds that can be squished out of existence. WHy do they call those deities Creators?
"I brought you into this world, I can take you out." A flexing of power as old as motherhood.
Volcanoes show a hot core, which proves that the earth was hot in the begining, which supports old earth slowly cooling for billions of years, not a young earth that was created this way.
I'm still not getting the idea. If someone believed the earth was created, they could believe it was created with a hot core, a cold core, or just the right temperature of a core.Volcanoes show a hot core, which proves that the earth was hot in the begining, which supports old earth slowly cooling for billions of years, not a young earth that was created this way.
Good point, people who follow beliefs strongly can simply adapt their beliefs to account for any obvious facts. That's the nature of belief. The idea of a loving beneficent god who loves innocents but allows babies to be born with horrifying and painful malformities and diseases is already adapted to account for that. So anyone who chooses to believe in a god will simply adapt their belief to account for any scientific fact to justify their belief.I'm still not getting the idea. If someone believed the earth was created, they could believe it was created with a hot core, a cold core, or just the right temperature of a core.Volcanoes show a hot core, which proves that the earth was hot in the begining, which supports old earth slowly cooling for billions of years, not a young earth that was created this way.
It's like two little kids playing cops and robbers. The cop shoots the robber with his finger pistol and the robber says you didn't get me cuz i have on my super armor, So the cop says I have super armor piercing bullets though, so the robber says, but i have a magic cape that deflects super armor piercing bullets.
You simply cannot win against unsupported belief. There is no point in trying to argue facts with people who live in a world of make believe.
Yes, but if god created it with a hot core he knew that would produce volcanoes that kill people. so he created it to kill us, or he is just incompetent.I'm still not getting the idea. If someone believed the earth was created, they could believe it was created with a hot core, a cold core, or just the right temperature of a core.Volcanoes show a hot core, which proves that the earth was hot in the begining, which supports old earth slowly cooling for billions of years, not a young earth that was created this way.
Especially considering an omnipotent creator would know that he created humans to be stupid enough to build cities on the sides of said volcanoes.Yes, but if god created it with a hot core he knew that would produce volcanoes that kill people. so he created it to kill us, or he is just incompetent.I'm still not getting the idea. If someone believed the earth was created, they could believe it was created with a hot core, a cold core, or just the right temperature of a core.Volcanoes show a hot core, which proves that the earth was hot in the begining, which supports old earth slowly cooling for billions of years, not a young earth that was created this way.
Not really. It's a costs and benefits balance. Why do people live on or near volcanoes (when there is abundant other land available)? It's because of enhanced fertility of the land. Having to run away once every couple of generations or so is not such a big burden when all day every day at other times you're better off for the proximity of the volcano.Yes, but if god created it with a hot core he knew that would produce volcanoes that kill people. so he created it to kill us, or he is just incompetent.
If you can get your hands on a copy of Professor Iain Stewart's "How Earth Made Us" there's a good presentation of why living near volcanoes is a preferred location historically. Each episode is an hour but each of them is well worth the time.
So the young earther has to think that god could not just make the land with enhanced fertility without burning people alive and suffocating them in volcanic ashes every now and then ?
Yes but they can be cornered like this and be laughed at for being idiots, which gives pleasure to me
The volcanoe.... god's little mouse trap. Lure them in with fertile land, when they feel all safe and secure, boil and burn them alive. Humans- they check in but they don't check out. god's a little twisted. We should be careful, I'm starting to find him likeable.So the young earther has to think that god could not just make the land with enhanced fertility without burning people alive and suffocating them in volcanic ashes every now and then ?
Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew.
The following argument is sound:
God has created freedom for humanity. We have freedom of choice. We also have the ethical skills to identify what is good and what is bad. We are free to make good choices, or bad choices. God created deadly volcanoes as a metaphor for this freedom we have. We are tempted by the good soil of the volcano's slopes, but we know it could be bad for us. Will we make the right choice, or not? That's freedom.
We are talking about people who believe humans co-existed with dinosaurs - looking at the Creation Museum would give one hours of fun and entertainment at the expense of others:
Giggity!Among its exhibits, the museum features life-size dinosaur models, over 80 of them animatronic (animated and motion-sensitive). Model dinosaurs are depicted in the Garden of Eden, many of them side-by-side with human figures.[34] In one exhibit, a Triceratops and a Stegosaurus are shown aboard a scale model of Noah's Ark.
Anywho..
Do you really think the young earther is going to think about the likelihood that God had an oopsie moment and forgot to just make the land fertile and instead, had to resort to the stop gap measure of just burning people alive with volcanoes?
God created the freedom for us to be an idiot. Somehow I don't feel comfortable about that.
Last edited by zinjanthropos; June 4th, 2013 at 09:41 PM.
We learn more from being uncomfortable than from being comfortable. Do you want to learn?
The freedom to be an idiot is the same freedom necessary to be a wise man.
Clearly killing people is something God is compleatly OK with. Volcanoes are hardly the only little death traps our world has. Fertile, well watered river valleys come with periodic floods. Idelic tropic islands have hurricanes and scorpians. God intends to kill every one of us, sooner or later. God has very little use for live humans, except as necessary for the production of more humans. He does seem to be collecting dead ones, at least those that meet specific criteria.
Oh I agree but I was only wondering why a wise deity would make it that way. But I guess God could have that same freedom.We learn more from being uncomfortable than from being comfortable. Do you want to learn?
The freedom to be an idiot is the same freedom necessary to be a wise man.
You remind of people that make children sing songs about noah's flood. You obviously dont know and have never seen people drowning or something similiar.We learn more from being uncomfortable than from being comfortable. Do you want to learn?
The freedom to be an idiot is the same freedom necessary to be a wise man.
Please, explain this to me, how will i learn from a loving god while im being burned alive by lava or suffocated with volcanic ashes ? People really need to stop talking about a loving god in the same sentences in which they say that he burnes people alive to teach them something.
This thread has strayed way off the path of scientific study. This isn't a theology forum.
Oh I don't know. God is showing us that there is a science to killing people. It's sort of like the science of hunting or fishing. God takes a volcano and dangles the bait, enticing not only the unwary but those who know full well the danger, anything to get them within range and POW! If killing is not a science then it's an art form and God would have to be classified as a master.
Your post seems rather ill-informed.You remind of people that make children sing songs about noah's flood. You obviously dont know and have never seen people drowning or something similiar.We learn more from being uncomfortable than from being comfortable. Do you want to learn?
The freedom to be an idiot is the same freedom necessary to be a wise man.
Please, explain this to me, how will i learn from a loving god while im being burned alive by lava or suffocated with volcanic ashes ? People really need to stop talking about a loving god in the same sentences in which they say that he burnes people alive to teach them something.
Do you deny that many of our greatest learning experiences arise form uncomfortable events? That would be a strange position to adopt and would be at odds with a wealth of personal, anecdotal and documented experience.
To answer your specific question, you would learn nothing from being burned alive, but others, observing your fate could learn the dangers of duplicating your choices. I remind you of George Santayana's remark: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This rule applies with, or without the presence of a loving God.
At no time have I written of a loving God in the same sentence, paragraph, post, or forum as ones in which I talk of him burning people alive to teach them something. If you believe I have then please specify where. I certainly do not do it post #24 of this thread, where I present an argument that appears to me to be logically sound. The only premise required for it is that there be a God. The argument does not require that it be a loving God. Please also note the argument is posted in italics. This implicitly distances me from agreement with the argument.
If you missed any or all of these points you should, perhaps, work on your reading comprehension before implicitly attacking the ethics of a fellow member.
Are you making a joke? I don't get it. Looks like more theology.Oh I don't know. God is showing us that there is a science to killing people. It's sort of like the science of hunting or fishing. God takes a volcano and dangles the bait, enticing not only the unwary but those who know full well the danger, anything to get them within range and POW! If killing is not a science then it's an art form and God would have to be classified as a master.
You would need to find a virgin.
Seriously, I live on an island with FOUR Active Volcano's. Mauna Kea (still active), Mauna Loa (very active), Hualalai (still active), and kilauea volcano (MAJOR ACTIVE). If you go to Volcano, and walk the old crater (more of a hike), and you can walk down to the actually lava flow, but I'd take the helicopter, the walk is precarious at best, no matter where you go in the park you see vents, still steam coming out. I am sorry for some reason my "return" button doesn't wish to work in here. When you drive through the various lava flows you observe flows from 1903 next to ones from 1989 right next to each other, but one of the things I find most interesting is the type of flow. Some is the a'a lave..which is rocky, and the pahoehoe which is smoother in texture and glimmers. They have informed us that there is another volcano....just south of South Point, which will become another volcanic island in Hawai'i though not in our lifetimes. The volcano causes water quality changes from time to time with a substance we call "VOG" which is basically sulfuric acid spewing out of the volcano. Vog has been very detrimental to many people with asthma and bronchial illness's. Volcano's also do NOT warn you when they will take out your home. They just do, and in Hawai'i the land then reverts to the state, so you lose your home and your investment in total. I am not aware of any compensation in that area. Mother Nature is awesome to behold, and Madame Pele has a mind of her own.
My apologies air quality changes not water *S*
Im sorry i thought that you meant a loving god, my mistake. But the biggest volcano in our solar system is on mars, the most active one is on one of Jupiters moons, who is he tryng to teach out there ?Your post seems rather ill-informed.You remind of people that make children sing songs about noah's flood. You obviously dont know and have never seen people drowning or something similiar.We learn more from being uncomfortable than from being comfortable. Do you want to learn?
The freedom to be an idiot is the same freedom necessary to be a wise man.
Please, explain this to me, how will i learn from a loving god while im being burned alive by lava or suffocated with volcanic ashes ? People really need to stop talking about a loving god in the same sentences in which they say that he burnes people alive to teach them something.
Do you deny that many of our greatest learning experiences arise form uncomfortable events? That would be a strange position to adopt and would be at odds with a wealth of personal, anecdotal and documented experience.
To answer your specific question, you would learn nothing from being burned alive, but others, observing your fate could learn the dangers of duplicating your choices. I remind you of George Santayana's remark: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This rule applies with, or without the presence of a loving God.
At no time have I written of a loving God in the same sentence, paragraph, post, or forum as ones in which I talk of him burning people alive to teach them something. If you believe I have then please specify where. I certainly do not do it post #24 of this thread, where I present an argument that appears to me to be logically sound. The only premise required for it is that there be a God. The argument does not require that it be a loving God. Please also note the argument is posted in italics. This implicitly distances me from agreement with the argument.
If you missed any or all of these points you should, perhaps, work on your reading comprehension before implicitly attacking the ethics of a fellow member.
I don't think he is trying to reach out to anyone, since I doubt he exists. I simply offered an internally consistent argument that could be made. Now while I did not mention a loving God there is no inconsistency in a loving God following those processes. If the price of an eternal happy and rewarding life is a few moments of excrutiating agony it seems a reasonable price to pay.
Well that is not true, good soil will not make all your troubles go away and make you eternally happy as you say.
Plus what would people learn if their loved ones were burned alive in a volcanic eruption, they would learn not to come there ever again , so they would still be without that good soil, just without their loved ones, right ?
I am not making myself clear. Those religions which imagine a loving God typically also have a Heaven, where eternal life is on offer. I am suggesting that there is nothing intrinsically 'bad' about a God subjecting his creations to a few moments of great pain in exchange for an eternity of ecstasy.
In short, if a God created volcanoes my explanation in post #24 does not exlcude the possibility that it is the God of the Young Earthers and so volcanoes cannot be used, as you proposed as counter evidence to a Young Earth.
But you are again saying "few moments of great pain in exchange for an eternity of ecstasy". What ecstasy, the survivors would leave that place and still be without that good soil made by the same volcano that killed their families.
How are you missing this? I am accepting, for hypothetical purposes, that eternal life exists. That those who have perished in the volcanic eruption are reqrded by this God with eternal life. Those who survive have learned that there are likely downsides to every upside. It's a WIn-Win situation.
But its not a win win situation, its a win situation maybe for those who were burned alive, because they got eternal life, what did the survivors get, how do you know that they would learn anything, because not all fertile land is next to volcanoes that will kill you ? Plus this is an argument against creationists, and they need to invoke a loving god because that is what they believe, so they can not use an argument that uses those methods, or maybe they can i dont know.
Have you read the Book of Job? It really covers the same ground, same 3000 year old arguments. What is new here, and what is the science involved?
Take a look at Marie Curie, a pretty famous scientist known for her work on radioactivity. Although her discoveries at the time were great, she eventually succumbed to some form of anemia cause by exposure to her work, more or less. If we assume there's a god manipulating the universe at his will then I suppose it would be safe to say Madame Curie was enticed into a role that would kill her. Radioactivity was the hook, line and sinker and she was compelled to study and experiment with it. At the time, the only living entity known to us that would have been aware of the deadly repercussions was the Almighty. Did he stop her? No, but I guess if he didn't for a reason then that reason would be so the next guy doesn't make the same mistakes.Are you making a joke? I don't get it. Looks like more theology.Oh I don't know. God is showing us that there is a science to killing people. It's sort of like the science of hunting or fishing. God takes a volcano and dangles the bait, enticing not only the unwary but those who know full well the danger, anything to get them within range and POW! If killing is not a science then it's an art form and God would have to be classified as a master.
It's the same as when you see those beautiful red berries and eat them, or try and pick up the snake with the pretty orange & black rings running down its length. Sounds like a case of the stupids but if God is the guiding light then once again he is sacrificing someone to save others. I think it's kind of cool to think that a loving god has to lure you into a death trap to teach survivors a lesson. It's mind boggling absurd but I guess that's why the Devil was invented.
Now science has had its share of experimenters that have tread too close to the unknown only to make the ultimate sacrifice. Hard to fathom but scientific curiousity for YEC's is actually a tool of god. Unfortunately it comes with a risk, so maybe all scientists should get danger pay. God is out there scheming and someone will have to die so we can all learn not what to do in his universe.
I am not a YEC nor a theist
Last edited by zinjanthropos; June 7th, 2013 at 04:09 PM.
I still don't get it. Any science to discuss?Take a look at Marie Curie, a pretty famous scientist known for her work on radioactivity. Although her discoveries at the time were great, she eventually succumbed to some form of anemia cause by exposure to her work, more or less. If we assume there's a god manipulating the universe at his will then I suppose it would be safe to say Madame Curie was enticed into a role that would kill her. Radioactivity was the hook, line and sinker and she was compelled to study and experiment with it. At the time, the only living entity known to us that would have been aware of the deadly repercussions was the Almighty. Did he stop her? No, but I guess if he didn't for a reason then that reason would be so the next guy doesn't make the same mistakes.Are you making a joke? I don't get it. Looks like more theology.Oh I don't know. God is showing us that there is a science to killing people. It's sort of like the science of hunting or fishing. God takes a volcano and dangles the bait, enticing not only the unwary but those who know full well the danger, anything to get them within range and POW! If killing is not a science then it's an art form and God would have to be classified as a master.
It's the same as when you see those beautiful red berries and eat them, or try and pick up the snake with the pretty orange & black rings running down its length. Sounds like a case of the stupids but if God is the guiding light then once again he is sacrificing someone to save others. I think it's kind of cool to think that a loving god has to lure you into a death trap to teach survivors a lesson. It's mind boggling absurd but I guess that's why the Devil was invented.
Now science has had its share of experimenters that have tread too close to the unknown only to make the ultimate sacrifice. Hard to fathom but scientific curiousity for YEC's is actually a tool of god. Unfortunately it comes with a risk, so maybe all scientists should get danger pay. God is out there scheming and someone will have to die so we can all learn not what to do in his universe.
I am not a YEC nor a theist
Oh shit! No! I thought about what I said in an earlier post and I'm going to recant because god killing people through enticement is only possible if he has no control over our actions. Another thing I'm uncomfortable with. So there's no science involved other than studying the mind of a killer.
What mind is that? God's? I thought you were an atheist.Oh shit! No! I thought about what I said in an earlier post and I'm going to recant because god killing people through enticement is only possible if he has no control over our actions. Another thing I'm uncomfortable with. So there's no science involved other than studying the mind of a killer.
It is and I am. Since most atheists began as theists, I think it's important to best simulate a return to the mindset of the transition phase.... reflection, analysis, doubt, questioning, reason & logic.What mind is that? God's? I thought you were an atheist.Oh shit! No! I thought about what I said in an earlier post and I'm going to recant because god killing people through enticement is only possible if he has no control over our actions. Another thing I'm uncomfortable with. So there's no science involved other than studying the mind of a killer.
What possible harm is there for an atheist to say God is a killer? It is one of the thoughts a theist making the leap from faith must endure. In fact it is a major realization, a key component in the machination that propels you into the real universe. You want evidence that god is a killer? Well it does no good to speak from an atheistic POV but if you are in the role of your former theist self then I think you can argue better just by using their own words against them. Something akin to that.
Last edited by zinjanthropos; June 7th, 2013 at 11:56 PM.
I know you are an atheist, as I am, because you rarely tire of telling us!
You appear to attack religion at almost every opportunity yet no matter how logical and rational you believe your thought to be you cannot prove that God does not exist and it follows it is highly unlikely that you will convert anyone to your own beliefs.
I'm not interested, any longer, in arguing simply about the existence of God. I believe our ammunition should be saved to attack those who openly use their religious beliefs to rubbish established scientific theories.
Lastly your point about Marie Curie. If I suddenly accepted that God existed there is no particular reason why I should "assume there is a God manipulating the Universe at his will" nor would I necessarily have to accept that "Madame Curie was enticed into a role that would kill her."
I should add, to make my own position clear, that I do not believe the anti-science brigade is confined to those who believe in a religion and that it is perfectly possible to be a believer and also pro-science.
Just to set the record straight.....Never once have I ever said God could be proven non-existent or otherwise. If God cannot be proven then any other belief attached to that god or its religion is total absolute bullshit. That information would be as unknown as the first nanoseconds of the universe. The last and most oft emphasized words I have to offer are: to believe in god you first must believe another human.
I'm not going to change until God is proven, so at least I've left an avenue open. Cheers!
Last edited by zinjanthropos; June 9th, 2013 at 07:16 PM.
Something bothers me about this, "God cannot be proven not to exist..." thing.
He, apparently, cannot be proven to exist, either. In fact, the entire image of this God, as defined, so poorly matches the actual Universe, every goal post must constantly be shifted in order to keep him "unprovable."
Given the evidence of the Universe and the lack of evidence of any God, much less the Biblical one, he cannot be proven to not exist but it's pretty close to it.
I'll make it easier for theists just by asking them to prove if the people who convinced them that god exists were telling the truth. Can't be as hard as proving god, could it?
Could a devoted theist or atheist for that matter, pass a polygraph test? (Science part of the question) The test asks if god exists. I saw some results when I googled this subject and for most theists it was a fail. Still not fair unless atheist results are posted but couldn't find any.
Last edited by zinjanthropos; June 10th, 2013 at 08:01 PM.
A polygraph only tests to see if the person is intentionally and knowingly being deceptive. So if they believe what they are saying is true, they will pass. Also if lying is such second nature to them that they have no negative physical reactions to do it. Such as sociopaths.I'll make it easier for theists just by asking them to prove if the people who convinced them that god exists were telling the truth. Can't be as hard as proving god, could it?
Could a devoted theist or atheist for that matter, pass a polygraph test? (Science part of the question) The test asks if god exists. I saw some results when I googled this subject and for most theists it was a fail. Still not fair unless atheist results are posted but couldn't find any.
Thanks... What I was getting at was the difficulty in proving what is true. You can no more prove a human is telling the truth about a god than you can prove a god exists.Theists actually put themselves in a very untenable position right from the beginning.
You get no disagreements from me.Thanks... What I was getting at was the difficulty in proving what is true. You can no more prove a human is telling the truth about a god than you can prove a god exists.Theists actually put themselves in a very untenable position right from the beginning.
I cannot argue. I have always considered the Bible a rather fictional somewhat historical novel even after having Pentecostal preachers for parents.
I have no idea what is currently being discussed here, but I do have a theory on why G-d would make volcanoes. The ash from a volcano is, if not close to, the most fertile thing in the world. When a volcano erupts, the hot air alters air currents, carrying the ash to where ever He wants it to go. Even the changes to the air currents without the ash is enough to affect weather all over the globe. Think of the Butterfly Effect, but instead of slight changes in air flow it is a massive jet of rocks heated past melting (maybe boiling) point.
Great...
Without reading any farther, I bet it's not a theory...
Yeah, it's good stuff. Except when it gets in your lungs or blocks out sunlight for an extended period of time.
You mean wherever the wind happens to take it. Unless you have some evidence that God is blowing on volcanoes like a hot coal.
Which you can say confidently due to your extensive time spent studying ashless volcanic eruptions?
Don't use "maybe" when you're talking about your scientific "theory". Be certain and confident.
I get that volcanic ash and hot air are God's little way of improving our garden, but why did he make that one pyroclastic ash cloud sweep over Pompei and kill all those people where they stood. Some crouched over children in the street, others huddle together in terror in their beds as burning air seared their skin off and cement-like ash filled their lungs.
Was that just an 'oops' on God's part?
Citation required.
Soil in volcanic areas may be good because of the extra minerals, but I am not sure that anything will grow readily in volcanic ash. And as for solid lava ... lichen may be about it, for many years.
Last edited by Strange; July 29th, 2013 at 07:09 AM. Reason: typo
We know the ash can contain useful trace elements which, in the long run, may benefit soils and fauna. The issue for me is how it immediately benefits crops and soil and wildlife to be covered in hot burning debris. Maybe God's more a of a 'big picture' guy.
Or just really clumsy. "Hey guys, have some fertiliser rich in trace eleme... ooops. I guess they won't be needing it now..."
They get a hint of what it would be like to be condemned to Hell.
This encourages them to behave better in future.
The idea is great. He just needs to work on his delivery.Or just really clumsy. "Hey guys, have some fertiliser rich in trace eleme... ooops. I guess they won't be needing it now..."
No no no. You're thinking of Old Testament God. New Testament God is a swell guy. He's the lovable oaf who accidentally burns entire cities alive. Just think of him as an all-powerful Kevin James and you get the idea.
I have no idea who Kevin James is.
Would it be okay if I thought of him as a less-powerful god?
Since I'm having a hard time correlating the suggestion to watch King of Queens to a discussion on God making volcanoes, I think I'll just let the analogy go.
When I hear talk about volcanoes I think about Yellowstone’s “super” volcano earmarked for an eruption around about now, but if not, then in the next few hundred years, tops. An act of god waiting to happen?
The giant sentient insects that will replace us will have lovely gardens.
To PhDemon - The question at the start of the thread mentions G-d twice and can be summarized as, "Why did G-d create volcanoes is He knew they would kill people?" Me using G-d to explain why I think G-d did what He did valid. Also, the last post containing the word "volcano" before me on this thread (which is titled "Volcanoes vs young earthers") was June 7th, 2013. So I think that the conversation was going off-track and I was answering the original question.
To Flick Montana - People who support string theory can say that they believe there are many other dimensions we live in but don't realize we do without evidence. Therefor my claim that if G-d exists he may have created volcanoes as a tool for him to use without evidence either. You are right in that I have never done research on ash-less volcano eruptions, but I do know that El Nino (a rising of water temperature on the western coast of S. America) effects the whole world. The causes and effect are not the subject of this thread. You can go to "http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino" to learn more. I believe that this is a proof of concept that an increase in temperature can have complex effects around the globe. You can read more about these strange effects on "http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/how-do-volcanoes-affect-atmosphere-and-climate". Now, your question on Pompei. My answer is simple. I don't know. If you want to talk about this more then we should do it in the Philosophy section.
To Strange - Volcanoes provide a boom for gardeners for my citation.
I hope I answered all those questions and defended against all your arguments. I have to admit, it is nice to be able to have an intellectual debate without fear of ridicule. You don't find that much on the internet. Thanks.
That does not support your claim at all. It says:
Which is not what you claimed.The fact is, volcanic sites are among the most fertile places on the planet.
String theory is one of several attempts to take known data and put it into a unified model of physics. Now, I am FAR from a physicist and my understanding of string theory is limited to the notion that it is a theoretical reimagining of the workings of fundamental particles.
Where as this is simply denying evidence at hand and suggesting something which is untestable in any capacity.
This does not denote support on my behalf for string theory.
I'm not sure how to argue El-Nino/La-Nina in a debate about volcanoes. The heat put off by a volcanic eruption compared to the effects of a large-scale sea water temperature change is likely almost insignificant. I won't say this with too much confidence as I'm not sure on the data at this point, but my guess is that the energy difference is significant.
Again, volcanoes have a tremendous impact on our planet, just not in the same way that I think you are suggesting. Not that any of this is even relevant to God.
I am aware of their effect on the environment. However, if they simply put off heat and not ash clouds, I debate that the effect would be significant. Again, this isn't part of the discussion.
Why philosophy? Is there not a scientific benefit to eradicating an entire population? Was it just a bad day for God?
I'm not interested in the philosophy of volcanoes (what a blow off class THAT would be), but rather your scientific data suggesting God is stoking the coals, which I have yet to see.
I think my argument, made on the 4th June, remains viable and dovetails, to an extent, with that of Jewish-Scientist.
God has created freedom for humanity. We have freedom of choice. We also have the ethical skills to identify what is good and what is bad. We are free to make good choices, or bad choices. God created deadly volcanoes as a metaphor for this freedom we have. We are tempted by the good soil of the volcano's slopes, but we know it could be bad for us. Will we make the right choice, or not? That's freedom.
If there is a god, what would lack plausibility in this interpretation? Nothing that I can see, and therefore I continue in my view that permitting natural disasters, including volcanic eruptions, is wholly consistent (and holy consistent) with Young Earth Creationist thinking about god.
Last edited by John Galt; July 29th, 2013 at 09:26 AM. Reason: correct spelling
Is that suggesting that the people of Pompei, to keep using that example, were aware of their precarious situation?
To PhDemon - Thank you. I don't think I can make my point without mentioning G-d. The question is about Him. So if maybe this question should not be posted on this forum. The question ask for properties of G-d, namely his reasoning for volcanoes. It is more of a religious question about a scientific phenomenon than a scientific question about G-d.
To Strange - I am sorry if I did not make my ideas clear in my first post. The point I wanted to make is summarized very well in that article.
Flick Montana - I brought up El Nino because I wanted to use it as a proof of concept. A proof of concept is evidence showing the basic idea of a theory, but is not evidence for the theory itself. El Nino increases the water temperature 3 degrees F to 10 degrees F across a large area. A volcano releases rocks heated to 2,100 degrees F over a comparatively small area. The smaller area should decrease the effects, but the much high temperature should increase the effects. We (at least I) can not measure the thermodynamic effects of volcanoes from where I am, so lets drop it. Also, I said that we should go to the philosophy section because that conversation can be summed up as "Why does G-d let people die?" That belongs over there, not here.
I like this quote because you started off saying something ridiculous, came to the realization that it was ridiculous, then denounced it as ridiculous. I didn't have to lift a finger.
Yes, that would belong in philosophy. But the issue at hand is not why God would do something, but whether or not there is evidence that He has. You brought up the notion that God created volcanoes to enrich soil through the deposition of trace elements (I am rewording what you said slightly because I believe your intent was muddled by your choice of words).
Now, all you have to do is provide us with evidence. Otherwise, your comments belong on a religion forum in the subsection about science.
Last edited by Flick Montana; July 29th, 2013 at 09:53 AM. Reason: Capitalized my personal pronoun so I would not be smote.
And yet you felt the need to bring god into it. I don't know why.
Education is a long term process.
Wait. Wait. I apologize for bringing G-d into the argument. Lets just step back and look at what the OP wants?
The question is, "Now, how will they (Young Earth Creationists) explain them (volcanoes) other then to say G-d created them to kill humans..." Read this carefully.I was thinking today about volcanoes, and i thought that its a wonderful argument againt young earth creationism, they can say that all dating methods are wrong, and that god stretched starlight and all that, but they cant deny the existence of volcanoes. Now, how will they explain them other then to say that god created them to kill humans, because they cant admit that the earth is old and that the core is still hot ?
The question can only be answer if-
1.the answer does not reject Young Earth Creationism
2.the answer can not maintain that the primary function of volcanoes is to kill people
3.(rule of forum) G-d can not be mentioned
Is this the question everyone is trying to find an answer for or prove that no answer can be given? This is what we will discuss? If its not can someone clearly state the problem?
I don't think you have to apologise for anything. The OP requires that we envisage a God and seek to see if such a God can have a justification for creating volcanoes. If I understand you correctly you were constructing such an argument. Other members seem to think you are making the argument as a believer in that argument rather than a Devil's advocate. I've done the same thing, more or less.
Strictly speaking, isn't the OP the Devil's Advocate, while you and Jewish-Scientist are presenting the case for the defence?
Right. We're set up for a hypothetical situation.
I reject young Earth because, logically, I must. That having been said, I can put aside the evidence to take up a purely fictional scenario.
I don't know how this is relevant. People are actually pretty easy to kill. Plenty of natural processes which are necessary to sustain the planet kill humans. To me, this just represents our egocentric views on how the planet works when we factor in God.
I have no problem with that.
I find the idea of combinbing young Earth without implicating God in the creation almost impossible. That's like explaining Adam and Eve without mentioning God.
I'm beginning to feel like I'm missing the premise of this thread.
I've never understood the law, so you may well be correct. If you are Charles Dickens would have had a thing or two say about you.
To John Galt - That is what I meant.
To FlinkMontana - What you believe does not matter right now. The question wants to know how YEC would respond. The OP says, "...how will they explain them..." So, pretend you are YEC and try to find an answer. The point of this question is to examine the OP and find a counter to it.
If I put myself in the mind of a young Earth creationist and I am asked to explain volcanoes without suggesting them as nothing more than killing factories for people who don't pray, I am completely unable to come up with an answer. As a young Earth creationist, I would probably explain it by drooling on myself or rambling incoherently.
Honestly, if someone is openly denying mountains of evidence (quite literally, as some mountains were formed well over 6000 years ago), how can I possibly put myself in their state of mind? Take a ball-peen hammer to the softest part of my skull?
That is disrespectful. I would expect more from a scientist. How can you be unbiased if you can not even argue for the other side? I think you can't switch sides on the debate because you have never seriously looked into Young Earth Creationism. I can not think of a sadder thing than that.
One can look at both sides of an argument if they are both rational. But in this case ...
Why should someone interested in science take something like creationism seriously when it deliberately ignores evidence? Why should we be respectful of people who are wilfully ignorant and/or deliberately dishonest?
I am a creationist.
I know.
I think this is a good short BBC clip on tour in the Creationist Museum, that may help give you an idea how a Creationist astrophysicist would react to this volcanic thread.
Creationist Museum - Video Dailymotion (4.5 min long – Interview 1.5 min into clip)
Basically Creationist astrophysicist interviewed, has no problem following the scientific method, but if the results contradict any literal interpretation of the bible, then, as humans make mistakes, the results are always put down to human error. Simples.
I am intolerant of ignorance and disrespectful to the willfully ignorant.
If a 5 year old came up to me and asked if God created the Earth 6000 years ago, I would not tell him to go play in traffic. My problem is adults, fully capable of analyzing data and coming to their own conclusion, deciding that everything we have learned in the last few thousand years is wrong because of a book which provides absolutely nothing in the way of evidence.
I'm genuinely sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I also genuinely believe that you are being purposefully ignorant in order to fulfill your belief system. That is completely unacceptable to me. That kind of unquestioning ignorance caused the Dark Ages.
It is very stupid (and also blasphemous) to think that if there is a discrepancy between the world (created in all its glory by God) and some fallible human's interpretation of scripture then it must be creation that is wrong.
Could it be due to an aversion to accepting/ promoting/ entertaining contra-factual claims?
Maybe you're missing the point: science isn't a debate.I think you can't switch sides on the debate
Oh please.because you have never seriously looked into Young Earth Creationism.
This is as bad as castigating someone because they've never seriously looked into the details of Snoopy shooting down the Red Baron.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 29th, 2013 at 07:18 PM.
Then you're being more than slightly disingenuous (if not actually dishonest) by putting the word "scientist" in your user title.
Most of my friends will be there if it exists, which I doubt.They get a hint of what it would be like to be condemned to Hell.
This encourages them to behave better in future.
Vog, and sulphuric air, really isn't good for your lungs, btw.
But your attempted answer to this "dilemma" doesn't work because you simply say: "Volcanoes do some small amount of good therefore GOD! But they also do some really, really destructive things destroying millions of lives: <shrug> but we can ignore that because ... GOD!"
That is not an answer. It is not even rational.
To PhDemon - That is a very good question. I want to buy a car. A mechanic knows how a car works. There is no contradiction. G-d wants there to be an universe. Scientists try to know how the universe works. There is no contradiction. Not only can both be true, I find that science actually improves my faith. The Uncertainty Principle says the world cannot be deterministic. A deterministic world could not have free will and divine intervention. Quantum Physics says there is a chance, however small, of any event happening. That means there is a 1/(some really big number) probability of a sea splitting. If one universal constant, such as gravitational strength or inertial strength, changed by any amount Earth could not exist. This supports the idea of an intellectual design to the universe. I personally don't find art that great, but whenever I see a picture taken by the Hubble telescope or an electron microscope, I see great beauty. I know that last one is more personal, but I think that everyone finds those pictures amazing at some level. Many of the best scientists were religious. Sir Isaac Newton was deeply religious and wrote many papers on religion. Similarly, Albert Einstein did not follow an organized religion, but he firmly believed in G-d. Rabbi Dr. Naftali (Norman) Berg an Orthodox Jew first and the Pentagon's Director of Research of the Advanced Technology Office second. An top of all of that, I really like science.
That is true. G-d make the Bible and the universe, so they cannot contradict. We must remember that the how universe is and what we think the universe is are two different things. Everything scientists have said since the beginning of time up to about 400 years ago has been proven wrong. For example, it was thought that heavier objects fall faster. Then it was thought that all objects fall at the same speed. Then it was thought that objects of the same mass can fall at different speeds if one is less aerodynamic than the other. We then changed "mass" to "energy" because light bends around big stars,planets,etc. For a broader example, quantum physics differs completely from the classical view of observer/phenomenon interaction and The Theory of General Relativity replaced space and time with space-time. We must understand that we can, and probable are, wrong. If I could find someone who would agree, I would bet him $Graham's Number that every current theory will be proven incorrect at sometime in the future.Quote Originally Posted by pineapples View PostBasically Creationist astrophysicist interviewed, has no problem following the scientific method, but if the results contradict any literal interpretation of the bible, then, as humans make mistakes, the results are always put down to human error. Simples.
It is very stupid (and also blasphemous) to think that if there is a discrepancy between the world (created in all its glory by God) and some fallible human's interpretation of scripture then it must be creation that is wrong.
First, observation is not debatable, but the interpretation of observation is. Second, it is better likened to ending a debate on the enhanced interrogation when you learn your opponent who does not know were "cruel or unusual punishment" came from.I think you can't switch sides on the debateMaybe you're missing the point: science isn't a debate.
because you have never seriously looked into Young Earth Creationism.
Oh please.
This is as bad as castigating someone because they've never seriously looked into the details of Snoopy shooting down the Red Baron.
To Babe - Breathing pure oxygen is also pretty bad for you.
If that were the case, then when you find a discrepancy between reality and the some interpretation of the meaning of a metaphorical phrase which has been translated multiple times then you have to consider which is more likely:
a) Reality is broken.
b) One of the many human translators/interpreters made a mistake.
Of course, the idea that a book written by humans, even if they were inspired by their god, is "infallible" is unsupported and unsupportable.
Nonsense. Can we add history of science to the growing list of subjects that you know nothing about?Everything scientists have said since the beginning of time up to about 400 years ago has been proven wrong.
But only when it confirms your preformed ideas and prejudices. In other words, you don't like science.An top of all of that, I really like science.
NO WORLD can have free will AND god. They are mutually exclusive.
Only if you're predisposed to see it that way.This supports the idea of an intellectual design to the universe.
So what?Many of the best scientists were religious.
No he didn't.Similarly, Albert Einstein did not follow an organized religion, but he firmly believed in G-d.
E pur si muove...G-d make the Bible and the universe, so they cannot contradict.
Yes. And this also applies with regard to the existence of god.We must remember that the how universe is and what we think the universe is are two different things.
Um, there were no "scientists" as such before that 400 years. And "everything" is a gross, and ridiculous, over generalisation.Everything scientists have said since the beginning of time up to about 400 years ago has been proven wrong.
Then you'd most likely lose.If I could find someone who would agree, I would bet him $Graham's Number that every current theory will be proven incorrect at sometime in the future.
Since science took off as an actual discipline very few [established] theories have turned out to be incorrect.
So what?First, observation is not debatable, but the interpretation of observation is.
The interpretation is either correct or it isn't.
If it's incorrect it's not science.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; July 30th, 2013 at 10:33 PM.
| « Is god really exist or not? !! i know its very common question. | Debunking Daniel Smartt' Atheism Article. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
98Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
