Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:You should realize how important evidence is in determining what is true or not.

It is not showing good common sense to ignore evidence

The earth is flooded right now with over 70% of its surface covered with water,the evidence is around you, just look and see it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:[float=][/float]


Well I did not just make it up about glacier ice being picked up and sat back down,it is based on a core sampling that shows the ice at a certain depth is different than the ice on top which could suggest it was lifted up and sat back down,because,if it was lifted up and floated? It would melt part of the glacier away and then when sat back down would be different. I didn't just make it up. Now how could the ice at the bottom up to a certain point be different than the ice above it?

Ok, I am kind of slow, I did not understand that you dont even realize that you
are just making things up.

How come you don't believe me and think I'm just making things up? I mean I usually give evidence to back me up.

I believe you are sincere in your confusion. I think you really believe the things you say, and that the supposed basis for your fantasies.

Now your fantasy is that something like the top half of the ice broke free, floated about and then returned. Seriously? Like, ice is "stuck down" and cant float; now entire ice sheets, all of them, all the glaciers are split like layer cakes, the top floating about, the bottom staying stuck.

That is wildly unreasonable even by your standards. But I guess you cant even tell, you lack the capacity to recognize the absurdity of it. Tell us you take it back, that you understand it is a dumb idea?

I understand that you think you give evidence, and that the evidence satisfies you because
you "know" that you are right about your gap and your flood; so that way all evidence can only be, and is, evidence that you, yes, are right. Confirmation bias on steroids.

The concept of "good and sufficient" evidence is utterly lost on you. Billions of years old zircon is entered into evidence for Noahs ark. Three ravens flying over
at dawn would be evidence enough for you that evolution is phony and that there was a flood.

Well, nobody is going to be able to teach you common sense.

You should realize how important evidence is in determining what is true or not. It is not showing good common sense to ignore evidence,while having none to present yourself,just unbelief and doubt about most anything when it comes to God and his word,oh but evolution is true even when it has never been confirmed. If you can believe life evolves based on the evidence? You could belief anything in the bible,but you give one a pass and raise your bar high when it comes to evidence for God"s word. You have never seen life evolve,yet believe it does,yet cannot believe the earth was flooded that you didn't see?The earth is flooded right now with over 70% of its surface covered with water,the evidence is around you,just look and see it.

kod52 wrote:And doesnt that leave the whole bible open to charges of "pure speculation"?


Regardless, it is plain as the place in Spain where it rains, that the story, as written, is not an accurate account of anything that actually happened.

kod52 wrote:And doesnt that leave the whole bible open to charges of "pure speculation"?


Regardless, it is plain as the place in Spain where it rains, that the story, as written, is not an accurate account of anything that actually happened.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

kod52 wrote:And doesnt that leave the whole bible open to charges of "pure speculation"?


Regardless, it is plain as the place in Spain where it rains, that the story, as written, is not an accurate account of anything that actually happened.

Who are you going to believe God or man?I'll choose God every time.

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

kod52 wrote:And doesnt that leave the whole bible open to charges of "pure speculation"?


Regardless, it is plain as the place in Spain where it rains, that the story, as written, is not an accurate account of anything that actually happened.

Who are you going to believe God or man?I'll choose God every time.

Muslims would say the same about the Koran, Mormons the Book of Mormon... yet, such is a classic petitio principii and begs the question to someone who doesn't accept the books of the Bible are from God. In fact, it takes much deeper theological work, to define the boundaries between writings of the books written by men as they were, to what exactly then is God's message or how such is reasonably kept intact.

hughfarey wrote:Well, firstly can I say thank you so much for at last coming clean and actually presenting something.

However, I'm so sorry, but can you not see that none of this is evidence? It is an account, a listing of unsupported statements and consequences.

1) "before the flood the earth was mostly just hilly and did not have the tall mountains we now have" Have you any evidence for this at all? Is there any evidence that indicates a lack of mountains at any time in the past, or is this just wishful thinking to reduce the amount of water needed to cover them?

2) "The earth was not covered with 70 % of water but only had much shallower seas." This is a bit of a non-sequitur, if I may say so, and anyway logically unsound. The shallower the depth, the greater the surface area for the same volume. I think that the oceans of the carboniferous period were on average shallower than they are now, but then the water covered rather more than 70% of the earth's surface. Anyway, whatever the dimensions, the volume remains the same.

3) "Most of the water now on the earth came from inside the earth". Is there any evidence for this? Sure, even now there are rocks 'soaked' with water - a recent discovery has found a vast repository of such - but the total volume of it could not be more than a very small fraction of the oceanic total.

4) "from geysors that broke open shooting heated water up into the atmosphere". Again, you do not give any evidence for this, although there are plenty of geysers still around. The question is whether geysers could spew enough water into the sky in 40 days to flood the whole earth, and whether, as they spewed, the falling water would not seep back into the places where the geyser water came from in the first place.

5) "the weight of all of that water pushed down on the crust of the earth,for every action there is a reaction,but the weight of the water pushed the crust of the earth down forming the deep trenches we now have that holds all of that water." Again, you present no evidence for this. You seem to be suggesting that before the flood the continents were largely 'floating' on oceans of subterranean water, and that the flood caused the continents and the water to swap positions: is that correct? It is an entertaining proposition, and perhaps not wholly impossible in some circumstances, but is there any evidence that it's what happened on earth?

6) "This pushed the earth's crust down and the water level lowered all over the earth as the weight of the water settled pushing down on the crust". Well, no, it wouldn't, would it. Rock and water being largely incompressible, the total volume of the earth would be unchanged. The more the rock went down, the more the water it replaced would go up, so the water level would not be lowered but increased. Even if the rock was actually compressed, and the whole earth got smaller, the water level would still be increased.

7) "suddenly lowering a little more as it settled the water level lowered exposing the continents and land,but this also pushed up the continents and pushed up mountains.etc as the water level lowered from the weight of all of that water spewing out of the earth until it reached a level where the water could no longer spew out of the earth from the pressure of the weight of all of that water now on the surface of the earth." Try reading this to yourself. It really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm trying to envision water of a density greater than rock, pushing down on malleable rock so that the rock oozes upwards like the blobs in a lava-lamp? Is that what you think happened? Well, fair enough, but once again, have you any evidence for any of this?

Now before you jump in and say in breathless prose with no punctuation that I am dismissing your evidence because of my bias please understand that I'm not. I cannot dismiss your evidence because, as usual, you haven't presented any. You've told a story, but not even attempted to justify it with evidence at all. Hey ho. Back to the drawing board.

Nicki wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Well, firstly can I say thank you so much for at last coming clean and actually presenting something.

However, I'm so sorry, but can you not see that none of this is evidence? It is an account, a listing of unsupported statements and consequences.

1) "before the flood the earth was mostly just hilly and did not have the tall mountains we now have" Have you any evidence for this at all? Is there any evidence that indicates a lack of mountains at any time in the past, or is this just wishful thinking to reduce the amount of water needed to cover them?

2) "The earth was not covered with 70 % of water but only had much shallower seas." This is a bit of a non-sequitur, if I may say so, and anyway logically unsound. The shallower the depth, the greater the surface area for the same volume. I think that the oceans of the carboniferous period were on average shallower than they are now, but then the water covered rather more than 70% of the earth's surface. Anyway, whatever the dimensions, the volume remains the same.

3) "Most of the water now on the earth came from inside the earth". Is there any evidence for this? Sure, even now there are rocks 'soaked' with water - a recent discovery has found a vast repository of such - but the total volume of it could not be more than a very small fraction of the oceanic total.

4) "from geysors that broke open shooting heated water up into the atmosphere". Again, you do not give any evidence for this, although there are plenty of geysers still around. The question is whether geysers could spew enough water into the sky in 40 days to flood the whole earth, and whether, as they spewed, the falling water would not seep back into the places where the geyser water came from in the first place.

5) "the weight of all of that water pushed down on the crust of the earth,for every action there is a reaction,but the weight of the water pushed the crust of the earth down forming the deep trenches we now have that holds all of that water." Again, you present no evidence for this. You seem to be suggesting that before the flood the continents were largely 'floating' on oceans of subterranean water, and that the flood caused the continents and the water to swap positions: is that correct? It is an entertaining proposition, and perhaps not wholly impossible in some circumstances, but is there any evidence that it's what happened on earth?

6) "This pushed the earth's crust down and the water level lowered all over the earth as the weight of the water settled pushing down on the crust". Well, no, it wouldn't, would it. Rock and water being largely incompressible, the total volume of the earth would be unchanged. The more the rock went down, the more the water it replaced would go up, so the water level would not be lowered but increased. Even if the rock was actually compressed, and the whole earth got smaller, the water level would still be increased.

7) "suddenly lowering a little more as it settled the water level lowered exposing the continents and land,but this also pushed up the continents and pushed up mountains.etc as the water level lowered from the weight of all of that water spewing out of the earth until it reached a level where the water could no longer spew out of the earth from the pressure of the weight of all of that water now on the surface of the earth." Try reading this to yourself. It really doesn't make any sense at all. I'm trying to envision water of a density greater than rock, pushing down on malleable rock so that the rock oozes upwards like the blobs in a lava-lamp? Is that what you think happened? Well, fair enough, but once again, have you any evidence for any of this?

Now before you jump in and say in breathless prose with no punctuation that I am dismissing your evidence because of my bias please understand that I'm not. I cannot dismiss your evidence because, as usual, you haven't presented any. You've told a story, but not even attempted to justify it with evidence at all. Hey ho. Back to the drawing board.

I had a different interpretation of ACB's theory -

* The earth was originally much flatter (with the present-day ocean floors being higher) and most of the water was underground rather than above in the present ocean beds.

*The geysers sent most of the underground water shooting up, falling and covering the whole earth.

*Eventually the water started pushing down most of the ground which previously had water under it - not compressing rock but pushing down a layer of ground which now did not have much underneath supporting it.

*The areas with the thinnest layers would have been pushed down first, creating the ocean basins and making most of the water flow off the continents into the basins.

Correct me if I'm wrong, ACB.

Nicki wrote:I had a different interpretation of ACB's theory -
* The earth was originally much flatter (with the present-day ocean floors being higher) and most of the water was underground rather than above in the present ocean beds.
*The geysers sent most of the underground water shooting up, falling and covering the whole earth.
*Eventually the water started pushing down most of the ground which previously had water under it - not compressing rock but pushing down a layer of ground which now did not have much underneath supporting it.
*The areas with the thinnest layers would have been pushed down first, creating the ocean basins and making most of the water flow off the continents into the basins.
Correct me if I'm wrong, ACB.

hughfarey wrote:

Nicki wrote:I had a different interpretation of ACB's theory -
* The earth was originally much flatter (with the present-day ocean floors being higher) and most of the water was underground rather than above in the present ocean beds.
*The geysers sent most of the underground water shooting up, falling and covering the whole earth.
*Eventually the water started pushing down most of the ground which previously had water under it - not compressing rock but pushing down a layer of ground which now did not have much underneath supporting it.
*The areas with the thinnest layers would have been pushed down first, creating the ocean basins and making most of the water flow off the continents into the basins.
Correct me if I'm wrong, ACB.

Possibly, but whatever the interpretation, none of it is evidence. Still, lets do a little unpacking...
"*Most of the water was underground". What exactly does this mean? That there were huge underground lakes, or that the water was, as is found today, chemically integrated into the rock?
"*The geysers sent most of the underground water shooting up". Geysers do not send water anywhere. Geysers are the result of underground pressure, often related to temperature. Are you saying that plate tectonics caused disruptions under the surface resulting in all these geysers?
"*Eventually the water started pushing down most of the ground which previously had water under it - not compressing rock but pushing down a layer of ground which now did not have much underneath supporting it." This sounds as if you think the water under he earth had been held in some kind of honeycomb structure, which collapsed under the weight of the rock and water above it.
"*The areas with the thinnest layers would have been pushed down first, creating the ocean basins and making most of the water flow off the continents into the basins." It's not clear what a thin layer is, in this context, if the earth's surface was more or less flat. Does it mean that the honeycomb structure supporting them was closer to the surface?

Anyway, good for you for trying to interpret; but my point is exactly the same. There is absolutely no evidence that any of this is at all true, and a lot of evidence to suggest that it is entirely fanciful. There's nothing wrong with making up alternative versions of reality, that's what fiction is, and very enjoyable it can be, but just being able to imagine something is not in any way evidence that it has any veracity at all.

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

kod52 wrote:And doesnt that leave the whole bible open to charges of "pure speculation"?


Regardless, it is plain as the place in Spain where it rains, that the story, as written, is not an accurate account of anything that actually happened.

Who are you going to believe God or man?I'll choose God every time.

Muslims would say the same about the Koran, Mormons the Book of Mormon... yet, such is a classic petitio principii and begs the question to someone who doesn't accept the books of the Bible are from God. In fact, it takes much deeper theological work, to define the boundaries between writings of the books written by men as they were, to what exactly then is God's message or how such is reasonably kept intact.