hoosier Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n1/coral-reef If you read this article you will find an assertion by our good friends over at Answers in Genesis that the Great Barrier Reef could have formed in less than 3,500 years. Now there is probably a refutation to this somewhere, but rather than dealing with that, it got me thinking about their motive for even dealing with this. Why do they even need to bother with this at all? I mean if you believe goddidit for how the coral got here in the first place, is it really necessary to try to come up with a scientific explanation (special pleading is more like it) for why there is so much freaking coral in so little time? Just say goddidit 6,000 years ago and the top few inches are what grew since then! Doesn't trying to come up with an explanation demonstrate a lack of faith on their part? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 26, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted June 26, 2013 I've always found it odd that Christian apologists generally dismiss science yet will, on occasion, try to use science to prove their assertions. If one believes that science is a work of the devil, then it should never be used as an authority. The Bible is the authority, through faith alone, and seeking scientific support for a young earth or any other silly thing seems to fly in the face of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 They just like to give people more evidence for their confirmation bias. It doesn't matter if its accurate or not the sheep will eat it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Sounding "sciencey" makes them feel a tad more legitimate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 AiG claims that everything is relative. It's... actually kinda funny in a sad way. They don't believe the truth can speak for itself, and insist that you can have the same data (science) and, due to different presuppositions, come to totally different conclusions. They've decided that all scientists who aren't creationists are doing science wrong! So on the one hand, AiG is trying to claim that there is absolute objective truth, therefore science is awesome and supports the bible. Yet they also claim that scientists refuse to accept this truth because truth itself is so relative that two people who come at the same data with different assumptions cannot come to the same conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernweh Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 If goddidit then why not say he created the universe just last Thursday and everything we know about reality was started from that point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymenaeusAlexander Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 How did the coral survive the Great Flood in the first place? For nearly a year global water depth would have been well above the relatively shallow levels coral need to survive. Did Noah have some on the ark? Did the koalas just drop it off as they neared the coast while journeying on their little eucalyptus-laden raft back to Australia? I agree that "goddidit" should be their go-to explanation and that Last Thursdayism is completely viable in that paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosier Posted July 2, 2013 Author Share Posted July 2, 2013 Well, technically coral is an animal, so they probably would say that Noah took it on the ark, and I'm assuming that when asked how the coral made it to Noah, the response would then be goddidit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymenaeusAlexander Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Well, technically coral is an animal Yes, it is. And so are fish and cetaceans. They are marine animals and like all marine animals they're typically given a pass because of the naive notion that since they live in water surviving a global flood would be no biggie. I've never met a creationist who thought Noah had a giant subdivided aquarium on the ark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts