Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Audie -- Because the passage I quoted Is part of God's Word and God Is real and He has told us / mankind/ Through Moses that That Did happen or it would Not be part Of God's Word.

You are insinuating that someone who Believes Otherwise is insane or Possibly insane. But then people have Also been trying to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and His bodily resurrection for those same reasons. And God's Word Does tell us they Did happen and even Why.

You are assuning that there is a God, assuming ypu picked the right one, that the flood story is from that.god, thst you interpret it right. Thay is a lot of assuming.

I am not into "insinuating". I like to say things straight

I dont think flood believers are insane, morally weak, or have rickets, etc.
"Everyone" believed it up until the 18th century.

People can believe in astrology w/o being insane. I dont think scientologists are insane.

Your assunption concerning me is incorrect.

I am also not into "explaining away" anything. For that, see people
trying to get out of what the ice, (among scores of other things) so plainly says.

Some try to explain that all away with "embedded age". Others wit, well, never mind.

Comparing the disproof of flood with "explaining away" the miracles
associated with Jesus is a deeply false comparison.

The Jesus miracles are, well, miracles. A matter for faith.
I dont do faith in miracles, but, that is me.

Miracles are for faith, or lack of. Flood is about physical evidence.

Two very different considerations.

To say that world wide flood and miracles are "explained away"
for "the same reasons" is simply and obviously false.

As several posters such as Krink could doubtless explain.

Because God's Word To mankind says "In the beginning God....created'. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was With God and the Word Was God......All things were made through Him and without Him, nothing was made that was made."
Throughout Scripture God is Assumed / taken for granted as Being. His existence is Not questioned. And He Also tells us that there are 'gods' that people groups have chosen to follow / worship, but they are Not real 'gods'. They are statues that look like things that God has created. The Greek people had 'gods' of fertility, etc. that they worshipped. But those were Not the God of the Bible.
I have shared the Scripture that tells us about the flood. So you can see that I'm not assuming anything.

The miracles were done by Jesus to get our attention -- that He was Not the average Jewish man. There was something very unique about Jesus Christ. He was doing things that would be Impossible in real life.

So --what Is the lesson to be learned through Noah's flood. Because you said it's a ........story given for a reason.

Jac3510 wrote:

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.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

• 9

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:What for?

The heckler seems to have re-sufaced methinks, though only God knows why.

Guess I wont unlike after hitting the wrong key. I might even mean it.

If your post is about me, have the courage to say so.

I am kind of scared of you Audie, whether you'll get your own AK47 and fire off some rounds or take a nice stroll in the park with us. Which is perhaps why I, on a subconscious level, perhaps remained a bit more ambiguous (however it was more in relation to your AiG thread opened). If I'm to answer now though, I'm feeling the tables are turned and it appears you felt a little heckled by myself. So, nevermind. It's just Krink perhaps misfiring, me misunderstanding.

I dunno about me either krink. Im never going to calm down.

Jac3510 wrote:[

You can't have it both ways. You can't say science proves but that it doesn't disprove. To disprove is simply to prove false. If science doesn't prove, then it doesn't prove false. You can't even say that science doesn't prove true but can prove false, because to prove false would be to prove true that something is false.

Compromiose. I was kind of schooled in the "falsification" model, but really, what science does is probabilities. Neither proof nor disproof is entirely possible.

Ya-uh. If we are discussing whether or not the flood happened and someone quotes AiG, and then you reject AiG on the basis of them being a perjured witness on the basis that the flood did not happen[/i

]

No, AIG is worthless because their guiding principle is conclusion first, last, and always. Regardless of evidence.

, then you are assuming that the flood did not happen and using that as a basis on which to count AiG (or whomever) perjured.

It is not an assumption.

I have absolutely no idea what your example is supposed to illustrate--that the scrap of cloth is unrelated to the case?

Entering one more piece of evidence to try to show guilt (or that maybe there was a flood) is moot after it has been shown you had been in a body cast in Paris on the day the murder was committed near the summit of Everest.

The demonstration that there was no flood is at least that comprehensive, and a lot wider.

Again, our discussion is whether or not the flood happened. You say AiG is perjured because they argue scientifically that a flood happened.

What, in philosophy, do you call it when you just make something up to enter as evidence? I know what it is called in court.

But implicit in that claim (that AiG is so perjured) is that they are making a FALSE claim precisely because the flood did not happen

That is not the reason it is false. Tho its a good hint.

And thus the conclusion (that the flood did not happen) is embedded in the premise (that AiG is a perjured witness) and so cannot be used as a premise that the flood DID happen.

get off it, what a buncha crap

And that gets back to all this stuff that you say you get. I would expect you to see this very clearly

What I see is you inventing premises, and, getting so clogged up in the
maze that you cant see where you are going.

Now, you can always argue that AiG is perjured via a modus ponens or tollens in which one of the premises does presume the flood did not happen. That is, you could say,

I could but that is entirely your notion.

1. If anyone argues scientifically that there was a global flood, then they do not understand science (and so should not be cited in scientific discussion);

no, its not like that.

It is a pretty good guess that they either do not know much geology, biology or physics, or, that they are being disingenuous, to put it mildly.

Also, of course, I seriously doubt that there is any "scientific" argument, tho
anyone is always welcome to come up with one, and i'd like to see it if they did.

2. AiG argues scientifically that there was a global flood

AIG puts conclusion first. is there any problem with that, where logic and philosophy are concerned?

3. Therefore, AiG does not understand science (and should not be cited in scientific discussion)

No therefore after a false premise.

Again, these are legitimate arguments. But please notice clearly that in both cases the premise that the flood did not happen (at least, not a global flood) is assumed in the premise

Uh no. The religious websites are the ones with the assumed premises,
that you know they would never give up. As in "if all the evidence in the universe" that you so weirdly find to be intellectual honesty.

The body of evidence that demonstrates beyond any reasonable jor possibly even sane doubt is hardly an "assumption".

. So while it's a fine argument in and of itself, you cannot use this argument to discredit AiG when discussing whether or not there was a global flood to begin with

I dont, wouldnt, and you have used up an awful lot of space saying that voer and over.

To so use it is to beg the question and to commit a genetic fallacy. And for someone as interested in being rational as you say you are, then you ought to abhor illogical arguments, even if you accept their conclusion, as you say you already understand from my previous post

Ok; you are carrying on both sides of a conversation. You decide what i said
and what I think, then say its all a fallacy. I guess I'd have to agree, there sure is a fallacy there somewhere.

Jac3510 wrote:*shrug*

I'm sorry you don't see what I'm saying to you, Audie. You are simply and factually wrong. I'm not telling you what you are saying or putting words in your mouth. I am telling you how what you are saying is classified in logical (not philosophical) terms. That you refuse to interact with that is the same as denying that 2+2=4. You are just denying simple facts. In any case, if you aren't going to interact with what I am saying, then there's nothing else to say. Perhaps if you would stop being so defensive and relax a little, we could actually have something resembling a conversation after all, but it certainly appears that is not to be. I wish it were otherwise, but there's nothing more to do about it on my end. I'll simply note to myself what you like to say about kites being in sewers, hope you manage to get it out, and look forward perhaps to having a meaningful back and forth someday. Until then, and I mean this with absolutely all sincerity, all the best to you.

Nicki wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

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.

I get it - the simpler life forms (those usually regarded as the most ancient) are supposed to have lived in the sea and at sea level; the dinosaurs lived a bit higher up on the land and mammals and humans higher still, so in the flood they could have been buried in about the same places. I find that hard to picture though - how could all the mammals and humans end up literally on top, spread out over all the dinosaurs, amoebae and so on below?

The problem with the guys that say flood dynamics could cause the uniformity of the fossil record is that they don't base it upon comprehensive data, but upon speculations akin to string theorists

, or those who have cooked up ways for non-life to become life without a God

Their narrative is VERY thin on substantiating data.

IF all these species co-existed on a very young earth, then the fossil record makes little sense.

IceMobster wrote:I don't want to open up a new topic to ask this question posed to YECs:

How do you explain volcanic activity which happened in a period before 10 000 years (or whatever is the amount you believe the Earth is old)?

RickD wrote:

IceMobster wrote:I don't want to open up a new topic to ask this question posed to YECs:

How do you explain volcanic activity which happened in a period before 10 000 years (or whatever is the amount you believe the Earth is old)?

That's simple. The answer would be that it didn't happen before 10,000 years ago. The measurement used to determine the age of the volcanic activity, was wrong.