Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:Atheism or science dont make a virtue of belief no matter what.

Don't you mean atheism and scientism? But then you'd be dead wrong on both counts vis-a-vis faith.

Byblos wrote:Not as much faith that's required for atheism (as the saying goes, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist)

.

Audie wrote:is that more of a cliche, or platitude, would you say? Or jsut one of those truisms like "its never too late".

(is it not too late to get rich in the Klondike goldrush, or homestead in Kansas? )

No it's a boldfaced assertion on my part. It seems there's a lot of that going on around here. The only difference is that I am able to back up my assertion.

Byblos wrote:The only difference between the two faiths is that theistic faith is grounded in reason (intelligible) whereas atheistic faith is grounded in violations of the law of non-contradiction (something from nothing) and/or inexplicable brute-force laws (unintelligible).

Audie wrote:So you say, it does take quite a concoction of words to brew that up.

Maybe to you. Ultimately atheism requires faith in inexplicable brute-force laws or the creation of something from nothing. You may not like the implications of such but that's the reality atheism has made for itself.

Audie wrote:I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.

Byblos wrote:Care to back up this assertion?

Audie wrote:Like I said to your companion in arms, if the flood wont do it, then nothing will.

If by 'flood' you mean a global flood you may (note the emphasis) have a point. But you very well know there are some of us who do not regard the flood account as a global event so your point is irrelevant (at best). So try again.

And please take note of proper quoting, it is really painful to answer your replies.

There is more evidence for a global flood than there is for life evolving Audie.I've heard from atheists who try to use science to deny a global flood to the point that some Christians deny it .

I've often wished I could've been around Jerry Coyne when he tries to give evidence why a global flood could not have happened like Genesis says first off even evolution scientists teach the earth was flooded after the earth formed,they teach comets hit the earth flooding it,they just go back billions of years for their global flood,this flood was before the continent rose up out of the flooded earth and I must say it is from studying the earth that they teach the earth was flooded,like crystal formation you must have water for crystal formation,also rock that is formed because of water.

But also according to NOAA the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet,this is deeper than the tallest mountain on land,for the tallest mountains rise up from the sea floor,now if we levelled out the earth's surface and filled in the deep valleys that hold all of that water,the whole earth would be flooded above the tallest mountains on land right now. So a global flood is not so hard to believe in especially compared to life evolving for which it has never been demonstrated,observed or seen.I easily believe in a global flood much easier than this belief dinosurs evolved into birds,or life evolves.There is more evidence for the bible and global floods.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Atheism or science dont make a virtue of belief no matter what.

Don't you mean atheism and scientism? But then you'd be dead wrong on both counts vis-a-vis faith.

Byblos wrote:Not as much faith that's required for atheism (as the saying goes, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist)

.

Audie wrote:is that more of a cliche, or platitude, would you say? Or jsut one of those truisms like "its never too late".

(is it not too late to get rich in the Klondike goldrush, or homestead in Kansas? )

No it's a boldfaced assertion on my part. It seems there's a lot of that going on around here. The only difference is that I am able to back up my assertion.

Byblos wrote:The only difference between the two faiths is that theistic faith is grounded in reason (intelligible) whereas atheistic faith is grounded in violations of the law of non-contradiction (something from nothing) and/or inexplicable brute-force laws (unintelligible).

Audie wrote:So you say, it does take quite a concoction of words to brew that up.

Maybe to you. Ultimately atheism requires faith in inexplicable brute-force laws or the creation of something from nothing. You may not like the implications of such but that's the reality atheism has made for itself.

Audie wrote:I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.

Byblos wrote:Care to back up this assertion?

Audie wrote:Like I said to your companion in arms, if the flood wont do it, then nothing will.

If by 'flood' you mean a global flood you may (note the emphasis) have a point. But you very well know there are some of us who do not regard the flood account as a global event so your point is irrelevant (at best). So try again.

And please take note of proper quoting, it is really painful to answer your replies.

No, I mean religionism makes a virtue of faith no matter what. Is your deflection and phony question to some actual point?
........
Ok you assert your tired platitudes.
And no doubt can back them to your entire satisfaction.

I dont think you or anyone can access the profound mysteries of the universe
by sitting in a dark room thinking about it, tho one may work up sufficient faith in
themselves to start believing they have.

I suppose its only natural to then project it that its really them
others who have this groundless and boundless faith.

Nothing in the bible can be shown to be wrong to a "believer". It is defined as correct; if its
not right for one reading, it is for another. Flood: literal, metaphoric or local. Who cares? It is true.
Its theological.

The quote thing is easy with a computer. With this tiny mobile, its not.

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is more evidence for a global flood than there is for life evolving Audie.I've heard from atheists who try to use science to deny a global flood to the point that some Christians deny it .

I've often wished I could've been around Jerry Coyne when he tries to give evidence why a global flood could not have happened like Genesis says first off even evolution scientists teach the earth was flooded after the earth formed,they teach comets hit the earth flooding it,they just go back billions of years for their global flood,this flood was before the continent rose up out of the flooded earth and I must say it is from studying the earth that they teach the earth was flooded,like crystal formation you must have water for crystal formation,also rock that is formed because of water.

But also according to NOAA the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet,this is deeper than the tallest mountain on land,for the tallest mountains rise up from the sea floor,now if we levelled out the earth's surface and filled in the deep valleys that hold all of that water,the whole earth would be flooded above the tallest mountains on land right now. So a global flood is not so hard to believe in especially compared to life evolving for which it has never been demonstrated,observed or seen.I easily believe in a global flood much easier than this belief dinosurs evolved into birds,or life evolves.There is more evidence for the bible and global floods.

If it is your choice to do so, then take the bible, and how you read it entirely on faith.
Asserting in your confusion and profound ignorance of physical science, that there is actually scientific evidence
for your faith being well placed is not so wise. You should either do
decent and diligent research, or leave it alone. Shallow, facile nonsense is no credit to you
it makes you an object of pity or derision.

Self deception ill becomes anyone, trying to deceive others is morally wrong.

A faith worthy of the name has no need for such, in fact shuns and eschews it.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is more evidence for a global flood than there is for life evolving Audie.I've heard from atheists who try to use science to deny a global flood to the point that some Christians deny it .

I've often wished I could've been around Jerry Coyne when he tries to give evidence why a global flood could not have happened like Genesis says first off even evolution scientists teach the earth was flooded after the earth formed,they teach comets hit the earth flooding it,they just go back billions of years for their global flood,this flood was before the continent rose up out of the flooded earth and I must say it is from studying the earth that they teach the earth was flooded,like crystal formation you must have water for crystal formation,also rock that is formed because of water.

But also according to NOAA the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet,this is deeper than the tallest mountain on land,for the tallest mountains rise up from the sea floor,now if we levelled out the earth's surface and filled in the deep valleys that hold all of that water,the whole earth would be flooded above the tallest mountains on land right now. So a global flood is not so hard to believe in especially compared to life evolving for which it has never been demonstrated,observed or seen.I easily believe in a global flood much easier than this belief dinosurs evolved into birds,or life evolves.There is more evidence for the bible and global floods.

If it is your choice to do so, then take the bible, and how you read it entirely on faith.
Asserting in your confusion and profound ignorance of physical science, that there is actually scientific evidence
for your faith being well placed is not so wise. You should either do
decent and diligent research, or leave it alone. Shallow, facile nonsense is no credit to you
it makes you an object of pity or derision.

Self deception ill becomes anyone, trying to deceive others is morally wrong.

A faith worthy of the name has no need for such, in fact shuns and eschews it.

Nothing I said was untrue,you can check it out if you don't believe me.Go to NOAA and check the depth of the oceans and you'll see and it is also true that if we could level out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded right now over the tallest mountains on land.Now give evidence that can demonstrate scientifically that life evolves and you'll see there is more evidence for global floods,but the truth can hurt,don't let it,let the chips fall where they may,because the truth will prevail.Also faith is not blind unless you are putting your faith in something with a lack of evidence,the bible teaches global floods and there is evidence for global floods despite what the doubters say or think or spew before thinking.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is more evidence for a global flood than there is for life evolving Audie.I've heard from atheists who try to use science to deny a global flood to the point that some Christians deny it .

I've often wished I could've been around Jerry Coyne when he tries to give evidence why a global flood could not have happened like Genesis says first off even evolution scientists teach the earth was flooded after the earth formed,they teach comets hit the earth flooding it,they just go back billions of years for their global flood,this flood was before the continent rose up out of the flooded earth and I must say it is from studying the earth that they teach the earth was flooded,like crystal formation you must have water for crystal formation,also rock that is formed because of water.

But also according to NOAA the average depth of the oceans is 14,000 feet but it goes down over 36,000 feet,this is deeper than the tallest mountain on land,for the tallest mountains rise up from the sea floor,now if we levelled out the earth's surface and filled in the deep valleys that hold all of that water,the whole earth would be flooded above the tallest mountains on land right now. So a global flood is not so hard to believe in especially compared to life evolving for which it has never been demonstrated,observed or seen.I easily believe in a global flood much easier than this belief dinosurs evolved into birds,or life evolves.There is more evidence for the bible and global floods.

If it is your choice to do so, then take the bible, and how you read it entirely on faith.
Asserting in your confusion and profound ignorance of physical science, that there is actually scientific evidence
for your faith being well placed is not so wise. You should either do
decent and diligent research, or leave it alone. Shallow, facile nonsense is no credit to you
it makes you an object of pity or derision.

Self deception ill becomes anyone, trying to deceive others is morally wrong.

A faith worthy of the name has no need for such, in fact shuns and eschews it.

Nothing I said was untrue,you can check it out if you don't believe me.Go to NOAA and check the depth of the oceans and you'll see and it is also true that if we could level out the earth's surface the whole earth would be flooded right now over the tallest mountains on land.Now give evidence that can demonstrate scientifically that life evolves and you'll see there is more evidence for global floods,but the truth can hurt,don't let it,let the chips fall where they may,because the truth will prevail.Also faith is not blind unless you are putting your faith in something with a lack of evidence,the bible teaches global floods and there is evidence for global floods despite what the doubters say or think or spew before thinking.

We see your sincerity clearly enough. Too bad you lack the capacity to see sincerity in another.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Atheism or science dont make a virtue of belief no matter what.

Don't you mean atheism and scientism? But then you'd be dead wrong on both counts vis-a-vis faith.

Byblos wrote:Not as much faith that's required for atheism (as the saying goes, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist)

.

Audie wrote:is that more of a cliche, or platitude, would you say? Or jsut one of those truisms like "its never too late".

(is it not too late to get rich in the Klondike goldrush, or homestead in Kansas? )

No it's a boldfaced assertion on my part. It seems there's a lot of that going on around here. The only difference is that I am able to back up my assertion.

Byblos wrote:The only difference between the two faiths is that theistic faith is grounded in reason (intelligible) whereas atheistic faith is grounded in violations of the law of non-contradiction (something from nothing) and/or inexplicable brute-force laws (unintelligible).

Audie wrote:So you say, it does take quite a concoction of words to brew that up.

Maybe to you. Ultimately atheism requires faith in inexplicable brute-force laws or the creation of something from nothing. You may not like the implications of such but that's the reality atheism has made for itself.

Audie wrote:I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.

Byblos wrote:Care to back up this assertion?

Audie wrote:Like I said to your companion in arms, if the flood wont do it, then nothing will.

If by 'flood' you mean a global flood you may (note the emphasis) have a point. But you very well know there are some of us who do not regard the flood account as a global event so your point is irrelevant (at best). So try again.

And please take note of proper quoting, it is really painful to answer your replies.

No, I mean religionism makes a virtue of faith no matter what.

And by extension so does any 'ism' including atheism and scientism. Why do you want to exclude those?

Audie wrote:Is your deflection and phony question to some actual point?

That's just laughable Audie, it is the very definitnition of deflectioon to accuse someone else of which you yourself are guilty (repeatedly, might I add). You refuse to answer questions, offer only deflections, and when slightly cornered you will accuse others of insulting you and demand apologies or put them on the ignore list. We've been there before and here we are again, I bet I'm next, although for what reason I would have no clue.

Audie wrote:........
Ok you assert your tired platitudes.
And no doubt can back them to your entire satisfaction.

And here we go, never discuss anything, simply dismiss out of hand.

Audie wrote:I dont think you or anyone can access the profound mysteries of the universe
by sitting in a dark room thinking about it, tho one may work up sufficient faith in
themselves to start believing they have.

Or one can have incoherent faith in themselves and what they believe to be science and only that, while denying truth is knowable. What self-defeatism is made of.

Audie wrote:I suppose its only natural to then project it that its really them
others who have this groundless and boundless faith.

Right back at ya.

Audie wrote:Nothing in the bible can be shown to be wrong to a "believer". It is defined as correct; if its
not right for one reading, it is for another. Flood: literal, metaphoric or local. Who cares? It is true.
Its theological.

I asked for one example where the bible as you claim was shown to be in error. You mentioned the (generic) flood while making no distinction between a global and local one to then proceed to dimiss the bible on the assumption of a global flood. Nice straw man, by the way. When I called you on it you went on a accusatory tangent of self-proclamations (defelctions anyone?). The flood in no way shows the bible to be in error for the simple reason that science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error (remember?). And even if it were, a local flood is in complete harmony with scripture. Now do you have another example or not?

Let's be serious Audie, you have no intention to engage in any topic or conversation that has anything to do with other than science. I have no issues, qualms, or reservations about anything scientific. But since science is not in business of proving anything and as you may have alluded to that truth is not knowable, I really don't see how you can offer any opinion whatever on any subject, even science, let alone discussing it in depth. All that is to say I understand your predicament.

"Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error"


I will let that rather fantastical bit of confusion stand for the value of the rest of your
post,which consists primarily of personal remarks.

Audie wrote:"Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error"


I will let that rather fantastical bit of confusion stand for the value of the rest of your
post,which consists primarily of personal remarks.

Lol, you're so predictable.

And that statement you quoted is a rewording of what you yourself often state, that science is not in the business of proving anything. Nice deflection, yet again.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:"Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error"


I will let that rather fantastical bit of confusion stand for the value of the rest of your
post,which consists primarily of personal remarks.

Lol, you're so predictable.

And that statement you quoted is a rewording of what you yourself often state, that science is not in the business of proving anything. Nice deflection, yet again.

Fora forum with the word "science"in the name, it is remarkable how little
grasp of the most basic concepts of science is to be found here.

Science is evidently not your thing, that you'd make so obvious a mistake.
You seem to be failing to distinguish between the idea of proving a theory, say, and disproving it.

Here is a chance to see if you have the capacity to accept that you could be
wrong about anything and not feel you must resist something just because it comes
to you first from me.

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Byblos: "Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error".

Who do you suppose knows more about science?

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:"Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error"

I will let that rather fantastical bit of confusion stand for the value of the rest of your post,which consists primarily of personal remarks.

Lol, you're so predictable.

And that statement you quoted is a rewording of what you yourself often state, that science is not in the business of proving anything. Nice deflection, yet again.

Let me provide the direct quote:

Audie wrote: Science does not do truth.

And now we have:

Audie wrote:"Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error"

-
-
-

Audie wrote: Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Byblos: "Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error".

Who do you suppose knows more about science?

Let's see, Audie, do this simple experiment. Get aboard a plane and fly over the middle of the Pacific ocean at 20,000 feet and jump out of the aircraft totally naked and when you hit the water you'll be absolutely dead.

There are absolutes. They do exist...
-
-
-

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:"Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error"


I will let that rather fantastical bit of confusion stand for the value of the rest of your
post,which consists primarily of personal remarks.

Lol, you're so predictable.

And that statement you quoted is a rewording of what you yourself often state, that science is not in the business of proving anything. Nice deflection, yet again.

Fora forum with the word "science"in the name, it is remarkable how little
grasp of the most basic concepts of science is to be found here.

Science is evidently not your thing, that you'd make so obvious a mistake.
You seem to be failing to distinguish between the idea of proving a theory, say, and disproving it.

Here is a chance to see if you have the capacity to accept that you could be
wrong about anything and not feel you must resist something just because it comes
to you first from me.

Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

Byblos: "Science is not in the business of showing anything to be in error".

Who do you suppose knows more about science?

Talk about personal attacks, you can dish it out but God forbid anyone level it at you right? Not that I made any personal attacks mind you, all from your side.

You can twist it any which way you want, bottom line is if science is not in the business of proving anything then anything it disproves can itself be disproven. But we all know your MO, you're just deflecting by changing the subject and getting hung up on semantics.

I'm still waiting for another example that shows the bible is in error. Are you going to answer or just keep going with this childish charade?

Einstein twisting it too?

Audie wrote:Einstein twisting it too?

Why, did Einstein assert too that there were errors in the bible without backing up his claim?