Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:It has occurred to me that there Is something to the global / local flood debate otherwise it wouldn't be so hotly debated. Could it be that the implications are a bit too important?

Does intellectualism become a 'god' to some people?

People lash out as if their lives depend on their being right.

There would be a debate if anyone ever presented some sort of fact
against evolution-which takes in the flood too, as they are 100 percent incompatible, as in
flood cant be true if evolution is, and vice versa.

As it is, a "debate" consisting on one side of falsehoods or
"God's word" and hard data on the other is no debate at all.

Not sure what it is, but its not debate.

Nessa wrote:

Katabole wrote:I know this was posted up here a number of years ago and although not keeping with the thread, it does cover a number of ideas that have been commented on in the thread.

Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

I've watched this a couple of times. I thought there were some really good points brought up in it.

An example of a good point ?

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Audie -- And, yes, on Google a person can find any information they want to find to support much anything they Want to support. People are easy to 'scam" ? Should probably let that comment go.

Same with the bible, it supports anything anyone wants. Black slavery?
That was a cinch for those deep south bible thumpers. Slavery bad? Easy for the northern
abolitionists.

There is really no substitute for being able to think.

Websites to support a " flood"?
Yes; and people with no depth of knowledge, or common sense like not to go to tabloide
or woo woo sites walk right into the scams.

Surely no parent would be so reckless as to get meducal advice from yahoo or the
Enquirer if their child was sick? But I suppose they do, some do

I didnt go to google websites for my education. I did it the old fashion had way.

Many hours of lecture, lab, library and field. I didnt just memorize, I can explain
what I know.

But I think all this makes you uncomfortable, and I dont think you benefit from it.
People are differdnt. I like to discover I was wrong about something, it is a part of growth for me .
I live for "aha" and the couple of times it has all come togethrr in an epiphany were high
points in my life. Not sure what you like, but this voyage of discovery seems not to suit you.

Too bad, but maybe you should stay away from it.

You are just too biased against a flood to even consider its possibility.You already have your mind made up a flood did not happen and you wouldn't change your mind if there was evidence for a flood.You look at everything from an evolution and secular scientific view point and then only go by that view when interpreting things.It limits you greatly IMO.The truth is you cannot fully understand this universe and the things in it only going by what the bible says or with just science.It requires both God and science to understand the truth.Rely only on one or the other and it limits a person to fully understand the universe and the things in it.

You demonstrate no ability to back up what you say with hard data, and instead impugn my integrity anc that of entire world scientific community. The ad hom, one of the world's moldiest fallacies.
Here is a fact: you know next to nothing about science, and less about me. You condtant habit of making up stupid and insulting falsehoods about me is most unbecoming, regsrdless of how "christian" you may think such noxious behaviour is.

The truth is you have zero (0) ability to disprove ToE, not one lonely little fact, not one.
How little sense would it require to take the hint?

If it is not true, show me. But you cant, because I am right.

You have not one thing, aka you've zero to disprove any of the countless things, like the age of polar ice that show your flood to be nothing but the childish superstition that Einstein called it.

If that isnt true, show us. Waiting. Waiting. Cant do it, can you?

Can you take a hint? No?

First off,don't be so sensitive as we only know you based on what you post and you are anti-flood whenever it comes up,which does show a bias.It is you that have never provided evidence or reasons why you accept evolution.Whenever you and me have discussed evolution you just deny all of the evidence and reasons why I reject evolution.I explain to you that based on the evidence I would reject evolution even if I was an atheist and yet your only response is to claim I'm ignorant about it and you appeal to majority opinion in the scientific community.I do understand evolution and I have very legit reasons why I reject evolution and you don't hear me using the normal talking points most Christians use.I'm basing it on what honest evolutionists and former evolutionists point out and I verify it to make sure it is right.

Meanwhile you seem to not even question evolution and just accept it while looking at things from only that perspective.Then you expect me to provide peer reviewed reasons why evolution is not right, which you already know does not exist.But you just accept it while overlooking the many reasons I cannot accept it. Also I'm not a young earth creationist so bringing up the age of ice does not apply to me.

Audie wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Katabole wrote:I know this was posted up here a number of years ago and although not keeping with the thread, it does cover a number of ideas that have been commented on in the thread.

Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

I've watched this a couple of times. I thought there were some really good points brought up in it.

An example of a good point ?

I could give you a good point but I doubt you would find it good.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Audie -- And, yes, on Google a person can find any information they want to find to support much anything they Want to support. People are easy to 'scam" ? Should probably let that comment go.

Same with the bible, it supports anything anyone wants. Black slavery?
That was a cinch for those deep south bible thumpers. Slavery bad? Easy for the northern
abolitionists.

Perhaps you're reading the online skeptics annotated bible? Interesting, such ignoramus insinuations or the like. Do you not know who helped drive a stake into slavery in England?

Audie wrote:There is really no substitute for being able to think.

Anyone with a brain can think. Critical thinking and the ability to research and perform your own analysis however, rather than a blanket acceptance of whatever it taught or said, that is something else entirely.

I must say that out of all of the evolutionists I have discussed evolution with hughfarey has been the most honest.I was greatly surprised when he admitted evolution or speciation has never been demonstrated by any scientist.Most would have denied it,yet he didn't.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say that out of all of the evolutionists I have discussed evolution with hughfarey has been the most honest.I was greatly surprised when he admitted evolution or speciation has never been demonstrated by any scientist.Most would have denied it,yet he didn't.

Bless you, abelcainsbrother. It is a common tactic of Creationists to take evolutionist comments out of context and distort them to support their own arguments. But never mind; in some ways it demonstrates the paucity of their own evidence. Rather than precis what I said (and clumping "evolution or speciation" together was particularly inaccurate), it would be better to quote me.

Still, I'm glad you think I'm honest. Many thanks!

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:It has occurred to me that there Is something to the global / local flood debate otherwise it wouldn't be so hotly debated. Could it be that the implications are a bit too important?

Does intellectualism become a 'god' to some people?

People lash out as if their lives depend on their being right.

There would be a debate if anyone ever presented some sort of fact
against evolution-which takes in the flood too, as they are 100 percent incompatible, as in
flood cant be true if evolution is, and vice versa.

Say what? How is a flood inconsistent with evolution?

I didn't know floods were incompatible with evolution. Even if you're talking about a flood covering the earth flood, at the same time kind of flood, which wiped out animals and humans with divine water that the earth didn't have to completely annihilate all life on earth (except those on the ark of course!).

Don't you know the with the kinds of animals taken on the ark, that YECs must believe in a rate of evolution faster than even your most evolutionary Evolutionist science Scientist biology Biologist would ever postulate? It's true, do the math!

So you've just made another silly statement. You should apologise Audie. I'm sure YECs would be offended by the thought that their global inundating all earth's surface with water from we don't know where, but even the My Everest and the highest mountains were covered flood, etc, etc would be offended by the postposterous thought of it being incompatible with evolution. Such would leave all the kinds of animals up the creek with no way to speciate.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say that out of all of the evolutionists I have discussed evolution with hughfarey has been the most honest.I was greatly surprised when he admitted evolution or speciation has never been demonstrated by any scientist.Most would have denied it,yet he didn't.

Bless you, abelcainsbrother. It is a common tactic of Creationists to take evolutionist comments out of context and distort them to support their own arguments. But never mind; in some ways it demonstrates the paucity of their own evidence. Rather than precis what I said (and clumping "evolution or speciation" together was particularly inaccurate), it would be better to quote me.

Still, I'm glad you think I'm honest. Many thanks!

Hugh, you're the most honest Catholic I know.
That's not saying much though. I try not to know to many, because I find the lot quite dishonest with their views. (except Byblos perhaps, but I suspect he's not truly Catholic as he seems different!) What do I mean? Well, a double-mindedness if you will, always believing something different to what Rome says is correct doctrine, but then bowing their head to RCC teachings and saying that is what I believe. Think it's like an allergy to protestantism or something.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say that out of all of the evolutionists I have discussed evolution with hughfarey has been the most honest.I was greatly surprised when he admitted evolution or speciation has never been demonstrated by any scientist.Most would have denied it,yet he didn't.

Bless you, abelcainsbrother. It is a common tactic of Creationists to take evolutionist comments out of context and distort them to support their own arguments. But never mind; in some ways it demonstrates the paucity of their own evidence. Rather than precis what I said (and clumping "evolution or speciation" together was particularly inaccurate), it would be better to quote me.

Still, I'm glad you think I'm honest. Many thanks!

You said that it takes too long for it to be demonstrated which is true and I already knew.You have your reasons for accepting it I'm sure,but still you were honest.Not in this thread but perhaps we can discuss sometime what convinces you to accept evolution.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say that out of all of the evolutionists I have discussed evolution with hughfarey has been the most honest.I was greatly surprised when he admitted evolution or speciation has never been demonstrated by any scientist.Most would have denied it,yet he didn't.

Bless you, abelcainsbrother. It is a common tactic of Creationists to take evolutionist comments out of context and distort them to support their own arguments. But never mind; in some ways it demonstrates the paucity of their own evidence. Rather than precis what I said (and clumping "evolution or speciation" together was particularly inaccurate), it would be better to quote me.

Still, I'm glad you think I'm honest. Many thanks!

Did you really "admit' that evolution or speciation has not been demonstrated?

A compliment like "most honest" than all them others on your team does not stand up well to a bit of unpacking. A left handed compliment at best, while
putting in that I for example, am not honest, and that you, while more honest, still must be betimes dishonest in this.

It is of course literally impossible to be an informed and intellectually honest creationist / floodie.

Lest one be tempted by the vice of Equivocation here, Im going by the basic dictionary definition of "creationist".

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:It has occurred to me that there Is something to the global / local flood debate otherwise it wouldn't be so hotly debated. Could it be that the implications are a bit too important?

Does intellectualism become a 'god' to some people?

People lash out as if their lives depend on their being right.

There would be a debate if anyone ever presented some sort of fact
against evolution-which takes in the flood too, as they are 100 percent incompatible, as in
flood cant be true if evolution is, and vice versa.

Say what? How is a flood inconsistent with evolution?

Dearie me, you do know the difference between "a" flood, and "the" flood?

Maybe not; nearest i can tell, you think there was some flood somewhere sometime that did something, but who knows what when how big or anything else about it.

THE flood, as per abe, croc, etc, has it world wide, recent, and the end of all life not on the ark. If you cant see how that is incompatible with anything in science including evolution, you cant.

A little splash-splash and maybe a lake bed filling in, that is not incompatible with science; it has happened often.

Don't you know the with the kinds of animals taken on the ark, that YECs must believe in a rate of evolution faster than even your most evolutionary Evolutionist science Scientist biology Biologist would ever postulate? It's true, do the math!

I've heard ofthe hyperevolution thing. It is stupid in a class with the idea that the excess water was wafted to Neptune.

So you've just made another silly statement. You should apologise Audie..

Maybe you should. Among other things, you as you do so often ignored
the main idea expressed which was There would be a debate if anyone ever presented some sort of fact against evolution-which takes in the flood too,

The person to whom I responded was a "global". ToE and global flood are
incompatible. Global flood is incompatible with reality. As you know.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I must say that out of all of the evolutionists I have discussed evolution with hughfarey has been the most honest.I was greatly surprised when he admitted evolution or speciation has never been demonstrated by any scientist.Most would have denied it,yet he didn't.

As it is simply impossible to be an informed and honest creationist, and you can demonstrate no point at which I have been dishonest, this statement has a tinge of what is sometimes referred to as irony to it.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Audie -- And, yes, on Google a person can find any information they want to find to support much anything they Want to support. People are easy to 'scam" ? Should probably let that comment go.

Same with the bible, it supports anything anyone wants. Black slavery?
That was a cinch for those deep south bible thumpers. Slavery bad? Easy for the northern
abolitionists.

Perhaps you're reading the online skeptics annotated bible? Interesting, such ignoramus insinuations or the like. Do you not know who helped drive a stake into slavery in England?

Audie wrote:There is really no substitute for being able to think.

Anyone with a brain can think. Critical thinking and the ability to research and perform your own analysis however, rather than a blanket acceptance of whatever it taught or said, that is something else entirely.

I've never seen said bible and wouldnt read it if I did.

If, as appears to be the case, you are unaware of the ways that American slave holders used the bible to justify what they are doing, perhaps,
instead of snarkulating me about it you could go clickety click with google
and see it for yourself.

And, maybe just maybe? Instead of going OT trying to find some fault in me, you could address the topic, which was that people read what they wish to find into the bible?

As for who was against slavery, well, you had Christians enslaving people, and Christians trying to free them. The arc of history curved against slavery.

Regarding blanket acceptance of what is in* the book you may want to address that to some of your thumpers here.

I was raised with "distrust authority". (Even if that didnt include Mom! )


*rather, what they think they can inerrently interpret from the bible.

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Katabole wrote:I know this was posted up here a number of years ago and although not keeping with the thread, it does cover a number of ideas that have been commented on in the thread.

Ben Stein's No Intelligence Allowed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

I've watched this a couple of times. I thought there were some really good points brought up in it.

An example of a good point ?

I could give you a good point but I doubt you would find it good.

I will take that as meaning there were no defensible points made.