Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie --sorry you feel that I profoundly misread you. Not intentional.

No prob

I've heard the term 'deep time' -- but don't know what it is.

Like, the earth / universe have been around for a serioiusly long time.

It's just kind of hard to 'disprove' something to a person who is 'dead set' in their position.

True. Dead set, as in beyond reach and reason. Mothers will say their little darlin' would never do such a thing, even tho there is as video tape.

Many people who cannot be honest with themselves or anything else will be like that. I hope I never am; but then, I do not mind being wrong sometimes, it wont shatter my whole world.

I've never tried to Disprove evolution -- many times, just using common sense shows Otherwise.

You are better off not trying. You wont be likely to succeed where nobody else can.

I printed the article so that we could go over it /point by point and discuss what it says. I printed out 10 pages

Considering how it started out, with such a simple minded
ignorant falsehood, its not real promising.

The current topic was glaciers and flood. Do you see why their existence
means there could not have been a world wide flood?

If you cannot see, or accept the very simple obvious logic of how glaciers
could not survive a flood, there is little to be gained from branching out into new topics.

I did find an article about deep time.

Because God's Word says there Was a world-wide flood --Every living creature died as well as the people who wouldn't believe what Noah was telling them -- okay -- the flood was great enough to kill every living creature and person on earth --except Noah and his family and whatever they had in the ark with them. THAT I will be dogmatic about.

I watched the video about the glaciers -- impressive.

I do Not believe that this world has been around for hundreds of millions of years. And I Do believe that the world came into being exactly as Genesis 1 and 2 says it did. So, now, about the glaciers. So --where Does the ice age fit. as the article is called. There's a list of vocabulary words listed on pg 1 of the article. Pg 5 tells us about secular/uniformitarian belief.
Pg 6 "An ice age also requires huge amounts of precipitation. (second paragraph down).

Time for a break.

Audie wrote:Uh, jac, seriously? AIG?

Yes, Audie, AiG. I'm not interested in genetic fallacies. You may not approve of the word of Snelling, but, as I keep saying to you, he's far more educated on the subject than anyone posting on these boards. I suppose I could try to find some other site dedicated to discussing young earth perspectives on scientific questions, but AiG is the biggest and easiest to search. Besides, do you have a young earth site you'd prefer me to cite?

In any case, despite the concern for genetic fallacies, I still wouldn't refer to them if I were discussing the matter with you. You've made your perspective on that clear enough. I was directing that comment to Phil.

I don't think we should say so unqualified that "no flood" could ever explain the stratification of fossils. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... long-ages/

Per the linked AIG article: in reality, it can only be dogmatically asserted that the fossil record is the record of the order in which animals and plants were buried and fossilized.

OK, so far so good.

AIG: Furthermore, the vast eons of time are unproven and unproveable, being based on assumptions about how quickly sedimentary rock layers were deposited in the unobserved past. Instead, there is overwhelming evidence that most of the sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly.

Highly disputed by abundant evidences, AND the age of the layers is irrelevant to my assertion.

AIG: Indeed, the impeccable state of preservation of most fossils requires the animals and plants to have been very rapidly buried, virtually alive, by vast amounts of sediments before decay could destroy delicate details of their appearance and anatomy. Thus, if most sedimentary rock layers were deposited rapidly over a radically short period of time, say in a catastrophic global flood, then the animals and plants buried and fossilized in those rock layers may well have all lived at about the same time and then have been rapidly buried progressively and sequentially.

This idea that a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people, that have EVER lived, and that they all lived during the same time, and then this flood caused mayhem and mixed everything up, but yet the remaining result is we see the various species almost perfectly separated, with the simple organisms first, with more complex and similar organisms in upper layers, and with obvious and global layer stratification per the dominant species in the various layers - I just find that completely absurd! Ever had a seen a cake with various bit specific layers of different flavors of icecream, chocolate, chocolate chips, whatever other flavors, with each layer with a specific flavoring ingredient. Now, let's drop the cake in liquid, into a large, powerful blender. Blend well, and pour the mixture into a pan, then bake it. Do you think that cake's previously neat, perfectly stratified per ingredient layers are then going to have the same perfect separation of ingredients per each layer? Of COURSE not! And that is precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous. And the age of the layers is not even my point - it's what is IN them and that the layers are obviously separated by specie types. If all of these organisms lived at the same time, they would not be separated into very discernible layers! This is why just a bit of knowledge of geology is important, as one must understand exactly what the evidences are, before credibly arguing them from a scientific point of view.

The reason For the great flood?! Why did it happen? From the book Of Genesis.

Philip wrote:This idea that a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people, that have EVER lived, and that they all lived during the same time, and then this flood caused mayhem and mixed everything up, but yet the remaining result is we see the various species almost perfectly separated, with the simple organisms first, with more complex and similar organisms in upper layers, and with obvious and global layer stratification per the dominant species in the various layers - I just find that completely absurd!

In the first place, an argument from incredulity is no argument. In the second place, the argument is not that "a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people that have ever lived" . . . that's a straw man at best. If that's the basis on which you reject the global flood, then you are rejecting something no one believes.

Ever had a seen a cake with various bit specific layers of different flavors of icecream, chocolate, chocolate chips, whatever other flavors, with each layer with a specific flavoring ingredient. Now, let's drop the cake in liquid, into a large, powerful blender. Blend well, and pour the mixture into a pan, then bake it. Do you think that cake's previously neat, perfectly stratified per ingredient layers are then going to have the same perfect separation of ingredients per each layer? Of COURSE not! And that is precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous.

No, it isn't "precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous." Again, that's just more argument from incredulity. You've completed ignored the mechanisms whereby the flood would sort out the fossils and rocks as we have them today.

And the age of the layers is not even my point - it's what is IN them and that the layers are obviously separated by specie types. If all of these organisms lived at the same time, they would not be separated into very discernible layers! This is why just a bit of knowledge of geology is important, as one must understand exactly what the evidences are, before credibly arguing them from a scientific point of view.

I take it you didn't read the article, because the article is not addressing the age of the layers. The entire point IS to address what is in them, particularly with reference to the species found in them.

The argument is not that "a flood took the fossils of all the animals and people that have ever lived" . . . that's a straw man at best. If that's the basis on which you reject the global flood, then you are rejecting something no one believes

I'm not referencing the scale of the flood, but that the layers are sorted so precisely and not a mixture of known species, WHEREVER the flood touched - whether global or not.

No, it isn't "precisely why asserting the flood did this is ridiculous." Again, that's just more argument from incredulity. You've completed ignored the mechanisms whereby the flood would sort out the fossils and rocks as we have them today.

WHAT possible NATURAL mechanisms would do that???!!! NONE! No flood sorts things like an accountant. Yes, God could have done so - but then we're back to Him doing what would cause mankind to DISBELIEVE the earth is very young - which is very interesting in light of those who rabidly insist that He wants us to believe that it IS young? Would God provide radically conflicting evidences between His two testimonies - regardless that one carries far more weight - especially wherever its properly understood? That makes me very skeptical of such an assertion. So we have massive evidences of processes that just happen to comprehensively reinforce across tons of data and diverse scientific data - that supposedly didn't occur - AND then God SUPERnaturally configured things in such a way that just happened to complexly match the discerned processes, and precisely as science would expect them to???!!! That is one heck of a lot of complicated coincidences! In fact, the more explanations I see from young earth viewpoints - so often that insist that so much was done supernaturally that we really can basically ignore what we think we can discern by scientific study of the Creation. Because when they argue from a SCIENTIFIC view, it just get more and more complex, and the explanations make very little sense or appear very contradictory. Either say science matters and we can trust it, properly understood, OR say that so much about the way God created cannot be understood or detected by science, and that massive agreement across so many studies and disciplines should simply be ignored. Really, you can't have it BOTH ways, or it begins to make no sense.

I take it you didn't read the article, because the article is not addressing the age of the layers. The entire point IS to address what is in them, particularly with reference to the species found in them.

My point is NOT the age of the layers either - although it clearly has implications for that. And my point IS precisely what is IN them - sorted, like my cake analogy. That is a fact! And if God sent a flood to destroy, discombobulate - to do all the things a flood would otherwise do, then IF he perfectly sorted things as they are found - and NOT as a blend of species in all strata, then I'd say He wanted anyone serious about science to be potentially misled by its applications - OR to simply ignore them. He's given and allowed us a powerful and proven methodology that we've seen produce so many marvels and new knowledge come from - and so He's given us good reasons to take science seriously! So we're to believe He's deliberately built in massive evidences that would lead us to a false conclusions - as He surely knew they would. Would He have us simply ignore such massive evidences from the study of His Creation? Why would God want men to intensely study His creation, see massive evidences of processes within it, that 1) did not actually occur, and 2) that would at the very least appear at odds with the supposed/asserted notion that Scripture is literally true about age issue - especially as even many Christians as well would conclude it's not even addressing things from a scientific view - or not in the way interpreted?

got it. you didn't read the article and so didn't see the multiple completely natural mechanisms Snelling discusses. no worries.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:Uh, jac, seriously? AIG?

Yes, Audie, AiG. I'm not interested in genetic fallacies. You may not approve of the word of Snelling, but, as I keep saying to you, he's far more educated on the subject than anyone posting on these boards. I suppose I could try to find some other site dedicated to discussing young earth perspectives on scientific questions, but AiG is the biggest and easiest to search. Besides, do you have a young earth site you'd prefer me to cite?

In any case, despite the concern for genetic fallacies, I still wouldn't refer to them if I were discussing the matter with you. You've made your perspective on that clear enough. I was directing that comment to Phil.

You do seem interested in the ways you can use "philosophy" to keep your kite down the sewer.

*shrug* I could just as easily say you are interested in finding ways to ignore substantive disagreement. But such cheap shots are boring and don't help get us very far, do they?

Jac3510 wrote:*shrug* I could just as easily say you are interested in finding ways to ignore substantive disagreement. But such cheap shots are boring and don't help get us very far, do they?

A perjured witness is never going to get respectable. AIG is just that.

You bring in philosophy to support it, then call it a cheap shot to call you on it.

As for substantive disagreement-on what? Details of a non event?
Is that properly called intellectual dishonesty, denial, or maybe just cynical
attempts at manipulation?

Your flood is fiction. The ice is only one proof of that.

If you are using philosophy to try to get around that uncomfortable fact,
or just ignoring it and playing "yeah well whattabout this", well,
talk about boring?

Stay in the stadium after the lights are out and kerp calling out that
"It was a strike, I tell ya!". Boring?

You seem bright enough, how can you do this?

posting from a phone so can't respond. but short answer is that you are confusing logic with philosophy. my complaint isn't you ignoring AuG or the argument. it's the same complaint I had with ACB. illogical arguments ought not be proffered by anyone. the importance of the subject demands more respect.

Jac3510 wrote:posting from a phone so can't respond. but short answer is that you are confusing logic with philosophy. my complaint isn't you ignoring AuG or the argument. it's the same complaint I had with ACB. illogical arguments ought not be proffered by anyone. the importance of the subject demands more respect.

Whatevs.

Prease exprain the logic of trying to bolster a non-event with "science"
from an unreliable source?

Getting ideas about science second hand from an agenda driven website
is not how I'd show respect.

I don't think the logic is that difficult. Phil said a global flood could not be responsible for the stratification of fossils as observed. I posted a contrary opinion from a peer-review published PhD in geology. the argument (logically) is not that Phil is wrong because Snelling is right. that would be an argument from authority which is a type of genetic fallacy in itself. the argument is that I do not know that Phil is correct because people more educated that him on the relevant subject matter disagrees. that is not to say you or anyone else (Phil) doesn't know that Phil is right after all and that Snelling is wrong. perhaps he has the relevant expertise to critique Snelling. if so he could offer that critique. he did not if course, instead ignoring Snellings argument and going for incredulity. and you went with genetic fallacy.

as I said it is fine to disagree with Snelling. that isn't relevant to my argument. I am speaking to my own warrant for not being able to state positively with Phil that a global flood could not in principle so sort the fossils. as I said then the point is a logical one, not a philosophical one.

to briefly add from the phone: were I arguing that Phil is wrong I would not post Snelling. I would, if I concluded that Snelling was right, make the relevant arguments myself and link where appropriate to proper scientific sources.