Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:No, I don't understand that. There have indeed been several ice ages over the ages of time. But does Google say that any of them have been the result of a flood? That's what's not at all apparent to me. Is is apparent to you?

I've found a couple of articles about ice ages -- NOVA - Official Website /What Triggers Ice Ages?
by Kirk Maasch

And Could the Ice Age have been caused by the Genesis Flood?
TASC -- Triangle Assoc. for the Science of Creation.

If you can locate and print out -- we Could talk about them.

Audie wrote:"abelcainsbrother"]

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

I am aware that you think that there is "no evidence" for evolution. This is incorrect.
No matter how many times you say it.

Also, of course, it is profoundly unrealistic for you to think that though essentially the entire scientific community of the world finds there is good and sufficient evidence, you, with next to no understanding of the subject, are right and they are wrong.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood.

If there was no flood, then that puts a coffin nail in your gap. Not that it is the only thing that does, but that will do.

Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water.

Now, I am going to skip the rest of what you said, and concentrate on one thing.

Evidence ice can stick down? You dont need to give evidence for something everybody knows.

BUT- then you extrapolate from an ice cube to say that an entire continental ice sheet can also stay stuck down underwater. That is profoundly unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Lets see if you wish to try to deny either of them.

1) Glaciers are not stuck down. They move, sliding along the bedrock.

2) The adhesive power of ice-to-stone is not remotely adequate to resist the
enormous buoyant force that would be exerted by five miles of ice underwater.

The latter point is of course an even-if, since the ice is not stuck down.

You have conceded that the ice predates any possible date for your
"Naosh ark" bit.

You know, however stubborn you may be about admitting it, that the polar
ice and all the mountain glaciers would float if they were flooded.

You know that the ice would then float about, melting and disintegrating.

You have tried three different contradictory stories to get out of this.

First, that the ice floated but didnt melt, then settled back in place.
You had to concede that this was unrealistic.

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

Then, you went for a hybrid of the two errors, that the ice was stuck, but the top half somehow came off, floated, then set back down.

None of that is remotely realistic, as even you know.

Now, I do understand that you are married to your beliefs, one of which is that "God" shows you how to do inerrant bible readin' and so your faith in a literal world wide flood such as in your fantasy is in fact infallible knowledge.

You are so married to your 'flood" that you grasp wildly at the silliest ideas to try to rescue it.

Why? Are you going to die if you admit you are wrong about anything?


haha

Never mind that. Lets see you try to deny that glaciers move, and claim they are stuck down. (keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib)

(you like videos, I can provide one from a camera under a glacier, showing in time lapse the movement)[/quote]


I have never said there is no evidence for evolution. I said there is no evidence life evolves,and I'm right which is why you cannot back up your belief life evolves with evidence. You can only rely on what scientists tell you and you choose to believe them. I'm the one who provides evidence for what I believe. I can't help it that you reject evidence I give,while having no evidence for what you believe. You ignore evidence for the truth and choose to believe things that there is no evidence to back it up.

Then you insult me because I provide evidence for what I believe,implying that I think I can't be wrong. I can be wrong sometimes,but not when I have evidence and you don't. You have never provided evidence that demonstrates life evolves,yet you choose to believe it can anyway and because we call you on it. You then find reason to bash the bible and certain creationists. We already know the only way evolution can be backed up against people who have examined the evidence behind it and reject it based on it is by insults to those who reject it and just declaring scientists are right.

I do not really provide evidence for you,because I already know that evidence does not phase you. I provide evidence because I can so that other people who might read through these threads might know the truth. I do want people to know that they can trust and believe God's word over what man says is true and giving evidence when I can is a way to do it.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, times are set according to time zone set in profile.

Might be a number system would help identify posts?

Yes, I'd love to replace this whole board system.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, times are set according to time zone set in profile.

Might be a number system would help identify posts?

Yes, I'd love to replace this whole board system.

I'm sure we could russell up a few sammiches for you while you do it

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:"abelcainsbrother"]

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

I am aware that you think that there is "no evidence" for evolution. This is incorrect.
No matter how many times you say it.

Also, of course, it is profoundly unrealistic for you to think that though essentially the entire scientific community of the world finds there is good and sufficient evidence, you, with next to no understanding of the subject, are right and they are wrong.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood.

If there was no flood, then that puts a coffin nail in your gap. Not that it is the only thing that does, but that will do.

Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water.

Now, I am going to skip the rest of what you said, and concentrate on one thing.

Evidence ice can stick down? You dont need to give evidence for something everybody knows.

BUT- then you extrapolate from an ice cube to say that an entire continental ice sheet can also stay stuck down underwater. That is profoundly unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Lets see if you wish to try to deny either of them.

1) Glaciers are not stuck down. They move, sliding along the bedrock.

2) The adhesive power of ice-to-stone is not remotely adequate to resist the
enormous buoyant force that would be exerted by five miles of ice underwater.

The latter point is of course an even-if, since the ice is not stuck down.

You have conceded that the ice predates any possible date for your
"Naosh ark" bit.

You know, however stubborn you may be about admitting it, that the polar
ice and all the mountain glaciers would float if they were flooded.

You know that the ice would then float about, melting and disintegrating.

You have tried three different contradictory stories to get out of this.

First, that the ice floated but didnt melt, then settled back in place.
You had to concede that this was unrealistic.

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

Then, you went for a hybrid of the two errors, that the ice was stuck, but the top half somehow came off, floated, then set back down.

None of that is remotely realistic, as even you know.

Now, I do understand that you are married to your beliefs, one of which is that "God" shows you how to do inerrant bible readin' and so your faith in a literal world wide flood such as in your fantasy is in fact infallible knowledge.

You are so married to your 'flood" that you grasp wildly at the silliest ideas to try to rescue it.

Why? Are you going to die if you admit you are wrong about anything?


haha

Never mind that. Lets see you try to deny that glaciers move, and claim they are stuck down. (keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib)

(you like videos, I can provide one from a camera under a glacier, showing in time lapse the movement)

I have never said there is no evidence for evolution. I said there is no evidence life evolves,and I'm right which is why you cannot back up your belief life evolves with evidence. You can only rely on what scientists tell you and you choose to believe them. I'm the one who provides evidence for what I believe. I can't help it that you reject evidence I give,while having no evidence for what you believe. You ignore evidence for the truth and choose to believe things that there is no evidence to back it up.

Then you insult me because I provide evidence for what I believe,implying that I think I can't be wrong. I can be wrong sometimes,but not when I have evidence and you don't. You have never provided evidence that demonstrates life evolves,yet you choose to believe it can anyway and because we call you on it. You then find reason to bash the bible and certain creationists. We already know the only way evolution can be backed up against people who have examined the evidence behind it and reject it based on it is by insults to those who reject it and just declaring scientists are right.

I do not really provide evidence for you,because I already know that evidence does not phase you. I provide evidence because I can so that other people who might read through these threads might know the truth. I do want people to know that they can trust and believe God's word over what man says is true and giving evidence when I can is a way to do it.[/quote]

Ah yes, evidence, facts.

But-

You forgot to deny that glaciers move.

Forgot to claim they are stuck down.

Could you do that now?

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:My 'opinions' as well as every person's alive are just as important as your 'facts'.

Possibly.

But that is off topic.

I said everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not to their own facts.

You made several false statements about me, stated as facts

If you are satisfied to continue to bear false witness against me, that is on you.

A better course might be to ask me what I really think.

I'm referring Back to these comments because you've not responded back to them and I'd like to Try to clear this up -- What Specifically have I stated that is Not truthful in regards to You Personally // bearing false witness against you.

And, so, what do You really think.

crochet1949 wrote:I've found a couple of articles about ice ages -- NOVA - Official Website /What Triggers Ice Ages?
by Kirk Maasch. And Could the Ice Age have been caused by the Genesis Flood? TASC -- Triangle Assoc. for the Science of Creation.

Thanks for the references, Crotchet. I've read them both. The NOVA one presents the 'mainline' view of the origin of ice ages, which is a "complicated dynamic interaction between such things as solar output, distance of the Earth from the sun, position and height of the continents, ocean circulation, and the composition of the atmosphere." Although this was written 1997, nothing much has changed since then. Catastrophism is not generally thought of as significant, given how many and how regular ice ages have occurred.

The second one is written by someone who is rather desperately clutching at possibilities rather than quoting evidence. It is full of of hopeful "what would have happened", based on little more than guess work, and contains some such incredible naivetés that no credence whatever can be given to the author's authority in this field. For instance his extraordinary first paragraph attempts to claim that a glacier cannot be 30 000 years old on the grounds that at a mile a year it must have travelled 30 000 miles! Most of his argument is based on another book by Michael Oard, who first of all decries a theory that has not been held for twenty years, and then proposes an unjustified principle that "the mechanism for the Ice Age is catastrophic and is not based on the uniformitarian principle." Unfortunately all his evidence for this first assumes the exact mechanism for the much disputed global flood, and then derives some very unlikely scenarios - mainly that uniform warming of the oceans is a "cooling mechanism" - without any justification.

This is not good science. First hypothesise a new and eccentric possible cause for a phenomenon, then ignore all current evidence for other causes and make up a scenario that might justify the hypothesis, then look for evidence for that scenario in the bible.

We began this interchange with your hopeful "Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood." The word 'Apparently' suggest some kind of evidence. This is, however, conspicuously missing, not only geologically and meteorologically, but, now I come to think of it, biblically too.

I'd located another article about the ice age with a couple of references in the Psalms? where something was being said about how cold it was?! I can try to relocate that.

The much disputed global or local flood has been based on the geological , etc. end results of. The Other side of the Story is Why the flood happened in the 1st place. And there Are those who feel that any 'god' who would purposely Cause such a world-wide catastrophy is a horrible being and they don't want to hear any more about it. So it Must have been a localized water event. And those of us who Want to prove it Did happen are Maybe some sort of 'whatevers' who really need to listen to Reason --be willing to be educated. And then no one will need to be concerned about a 'god' -- where-ever.

I've found that some of the scientific explanations are 'over my head' -- the amount of time a glacier travels and how old it is -- it is expected that some info will change minds -- After all - the person who wrote it Must have accurate info so we need to believe in it. Well -- sorry -- but not really.

Maybe Do need to focus more on the condition of men's souls. That God created mankind and animals -- that people didn't simply develop over time and that nature does it's thing and life either goes on or stops? My question would be -- through all the ice ages over millions of years -- WHAT has gotten various populations 'going' after they have died out due to climate change. No person would have been around to observe any of it. And life does happen only one day at a time -- one generation at a time. And Those time periods accumulate to form past history and predict to some extent what Might happen in the future.

crochet1949 wrote:I've found that some of the scientific explanations are 'over my head'

Yes; not to worry. But you mustn't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't understand them, they are intrinsically incomprehensible. Some of us read scientific papers all the time and we are used to the way science is presented; and it's not at all as complicated as it may appear.

the person who wrote it Must have accurate info so we need to believe in it. Well -- sorry -- but not really.

You're rambling, Crotchet. The person who wrote what? Accurate info about what? You 'need' to believe something? Why? "But not really" You don't need to believe something? This doesn't mean anything, does it?

Maybe Do need to focus more on the condition of men's souls. That God created mankind and animals -- that people didn't simply develop over time and that nature does it's thing and life either goes on or stops?

The condition of men's souls is a worthwhile consideration, but of limited relevance to the scientific evidence for or against scientific hypotheses.

My question would be -- through all the ice ages over millions of years -- WHAT has gotten various populations 'going' after they have died out due to climate change. No person would have been around to observe any of it. And life does happen only one day at a time -- one generation at a time.

Well, let's start from the idea that there have been no global floods and no global ice-sheets in the last half billion years or so, at least since the Cambrian explosion. Such major catastrophes as there have been, the odd comet and several ice-ages, have failed to eliminate all life. Some quite extensive groups, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, may have died out completely, and those populations have not 'gotten going' again. However, as the earth recovered, and the ecological niches previously occupied by extinct lines became available for colonisation again, then rapid evolutionary diversity is both expected and observed in the fossil record. True, no one was around to observe much of this (although there were people in abundance at the end of the last ice age), but the evidence is there for us to find and interpret as best we may.

And Those time periods accumulate to form past history and predict to some extent what Might happen in the future.

Not sure what this means, but given the fairly random nature of the catastrophes we know about, I think it rather difficult to predict the evolutionary future of life on earth with any confidence.

I don't feel I'm 'rambling'. I'm simply not agreeing with you. Sounds like you're putting scientific information as being more important than the Biblical explanation Of.

More to the point -- evolution says there were several ice ages over billions of years of time. IF life has simply 'developed' over all the billions of years -- What got it Going in the 1st place. We DO know that we have life Now and it's 'How' we got here that mystifies people. Even though we Do have Genesis account of how it happened. Why is That so hard to accept?
What allows the earth to 'recover'? Compare that to a cut / bruise on our body. Cuts Do heal and bruises heal and sometimes scars are left, but the injury Does heal -- but How does that happen. What allows healing to take place? What is doing the healing? Does Anything heal just by itself.

According to Genesis -- Adam and Eve were the 1st man/woman combo to reproduce the following generations and then Moses and his wife and family started the process over again. That is what God has given us in the book of Beginnings.

The 'future' is what we are given in Revelations. As we've noticed -- the political scene -- Society -- crime is getting worse and worse -- our 'development' is in a state of Deteriorating / Devolving rather than Evolving in a Positive way.

crochet1949 wrote:I don't feel I'm 'rambling'. I'm simply not agreeing with you.

Well, you wouldn't, would you? But would you like to reread this and tell us what it means? "the person who wrote it Must have accurate info so we need to believe in it. Well -- sorry -- but not really" To me, it is not a disagreement with anybody; it just doesn't mean anything. The person who wrote what? Accurate info about what? You 'need' to believe something? Why? "But not really" You don't need to believe something? It doesn't make sense.

Sounds like you're putting scientific information as being more important than the Biblical explanation Of.

Nope. You wrote: " Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood." This is not God's word, nor a Biblical explanation of God's word.

More to the point -- evolution says there were several ice ages over billions of years of time. IF life has simply 'developed' over all the billions of years -- What got it Going in the 1st place. We DO know that we have life Now and it's 'How' we got here that mystifies people. Even though we Do have Genesis account of how it happened. Why is That so hard to accept? What allows the earth to 'recover'? Compare that to a cut / bruise on our body. Cuts Do heal and bruises heal and sometimes scars are left, but the injury Does heal -- but How does that happen. What allows healing to take place? What is doing the healing? Does Anything heal just by itself?

I'm perfectly certain that you don't care in the slightest for my answers to these questions, so why ask them? If you had read any of my posts over the past few months you'd know what I thought anyway.

According to Genesis -- Adam and Eve were the 1st man/woman combo to reproduce the following generations and then Moses and his wife and family started the process over again. That is what God has given us in the book of Beginnings.

Does this answer my inquiry about why you think "there was a short ice age as a result of the flood."? Or would you like to drop that and move on to something else?

The 'future' is what we are given in Revelations. As we've noticed -- the political scene -- Society -- crime is getting worse and worse -- our 'development' is in a state of Deteriorating / Devolving rather than Evolving in a Positive way.

No. The world is becoming more peaceful not less. Crime is decreasing. A steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies, living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age, more so than ever before. Try Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of our Nature' for the evidence.

'hughfarey' I found the other article and printed it out. Hadn't done that so I was floundering. Will get back with That in a bit.

I'm back with another article I printed out ...
Is there a Biblical Case for Climate Change? Planet in Distress.

http://planetindistress.com/2012/05/25/ ... te-change/

can you locate it and your thoughts.

I DO have a question for you -- on what basis do you see the world becoming More peaceful -- I'm just observing from the News reports. That which I observe around me.

As people -- we Do have choices every day about what we do. Potential for both Good And evil. And it Is true that we hear more negative than positive because that's what makes the news. But there Is plenty of evil happening every day.

And I Could bring up the war-torn countries that are leaving plenty of refuges with Nothing.

crochet1949 wrote:I'm back with another article I printed out ...
Is there a Biblical Case for Climate Change? Planet in Distress. [...] Can you locate it and your thoughts.

Thank you, yes, I found it. The answer says the article, is no.

And is the world a better place than it was fifty, a hundred, or two hundred years ago? News reports and anecdotes are hardly a guide to global progress. To consider the world as a whole, you need to look at global data. How many murders, say, per million population, or deaths by warfare, or disease? What proportion of the world is literate? What proportion of the world's nations are democracies? In any dispassionate assessment of any of these data, we are truly living in the best world yet. Sure, there's plenty more to do, but the idea that global civilisation is degenerating is simply not borne out by the evidence.