Jump to content

Aig And Coral Reefs


hoosier
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.