Evidence for God from Science

I'd love to address the scientific impossibility of a flying dinosaur that can breath fire surviving until a couple thousand years ago.

and....

Jac: Of course, and I have no reason to doubt the credibility of these geologists
HFD: Obviously you don't or you wouldn't cite them. But I have significant reason to doubt their credibility.

This conversation would never happen.
It's not that I don't accept their credibility, it's that no respected, currently-being-published scientist does. Why you may ask? It's because they do their pseudo-science with their conclusions already in mind! This is why they are not credible! This is why you cannot cite AIG in an academic setting. You cannot develop a certain conclusion first and then twist and bend random information to build up to it.

I'm not commenting on that. I'm saying that saying their arguments are wrong because of who they are is a genetic fallacy. Saying you aren't interested in their arguments because of who they are is not. I couldn't care any less if it's you or the whole scientific community or your neighbor or God Himself making the statement. That's completely irrelevant. The question is only the formal validity of your statement.

To say a statement is false based on its source its fallacious. Such is an irrational statement.
To say you are not willing to entertain a statement based on its source is not fallacious. That's a matter of judgment and relies heavily on issues of prudence. If my suggested conversation would never happen, that just means that you aren't interested in rational conversation or matters of prudence, but instead irrational preaching. And if you want to preach, that's fine, but I'm not terribly inclined to listen.

Bottom line: do you see the distinction between judging the truth value of a claim based on its source and judging the value of spending time and energy evaluating a claim based on its source?

Audie wrote:The flood story is one of the bible's built in fallacies. One of many, one of many reasons its
not a credible or particularly interesting book.

I have already given evidence for it that you ignore meanwhiile you cannot present ANY scientific paper that demonstrates life evolves.I have evidence and you don't.

The source in question uses methods that cannot produce correct information, it's not possible. You cannot make a conclusion then distort data to meet it. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

AIG cannot produce new (meaning they proposed it) and correct information on anything related to Geology as they do not follow the scientific method.

Even if they by some miracle made a correct conclusion by chance, their data confirming the conclusion would be false and skewed; it still wouldn't be relevant.

Okay, it's clear that your hatred for AiG is making it impossible for you to have a reasonable discussion. I've asked you direct questions repeatedly, and you refuse to answer directly. I get it and I don't blame you for it. We all have our blind spots, and I'm the first to admit that I have them. But I'm not interested in playing along with yours in this case. It'll cause too much friction in future discussions, so I'll simply leave it at that.

God bless

Perhaps I'm using a " genetic fallacy" ( denying it is arguing of a subject of no interest to me and beating a dead horse), regardless my point should clear. I feel that we might be a little to focused on the wonderful art of philosophy; I think you actually understand my point but have not addressed because of the interest in correcting my admittedly flawed philosophy. Just as you say "i'm not a geologist" I say "i'm not a philosopher."

I concede that if AIG does have correct information; they acknowledge quantum mechanics for example.
My point, that I suppose was not crystal clear, is that any information gained from the research of AIG pertaining to any scientific field is not valid as they do not follow the scientific method. =

Jac3510 wrote:Okay, it's clear that your hatred for AiG is making it impossible for you to have a reasonable discussion. I've asked you direct questions repeatedly, and you refuse to answer directly. I get it and I don't blame you for it. We all have our blind spots, and I'm the first to admit that I have them. But I'm not interested in playing along with yours in this case. It'll cause too much friction in future discussions, so I'll simply leave it at that.

God bless

The only question I see is one asking me If I understand a concept or not.
You've not asked me "direct questions", if you did, they weren't very direct. I do have a good arm for reading.

Leaving off on a whammy isn't proving your point to me either.

I really don't see what you're trying to accomplish. Prove to me through philosophy that AIG isn't a scientific disgrace? The only thing I've seen is an accusation of a genetic fallacy, nothing touching on the fact that AIG does not use the scientific method and grossly misinterprets data to meet preconceived conclusions.

Would discussing polonium halos be an acceptable topic for you jac?

If we want a scientific discussion I'll gladly grant it.

HappyFlappyDeist wrote:The source in question uses methods that cannot produce correct information, it's not possible. You cannot make a conclusion then distort data to meet it. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

AIG cannot produce new (meaning they proposed it) and correct information on anything related to Geology as they do not follow the scientific method.

Even if they by some miracle made a correct conclusion by chance, their data confirming the conclusion would be false and skewed; it still wouldn't be relevant.

Did you know science teaches a global flood? They claim comets brought the water to the earth and flooded it,this was before the continent rose up on its own of course.

Did you know science teaches a global flood? They claim comets brought the water to the earth and flooded it,this was before the continent rose up on its own of course.

Hello Abel!

I'm sort of confused on how to respond to this.....
Are you asserting that Noah's flood could've been caused by comets?
Or-- Are you just trying to make a point the earth was flooded at one point.

-----side note: it wasn't "flooded" from water from the comets. It, over the period of couple hundred million years, gradually accumulated by a variety of processes (it was not isolated to the comet hypothesis).-------

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:The flood story is one of the bible's built in fallacies. One of many, one of many reasons its
not a credible or particularly interesting book.

I have already given evidence for it that you ignore meanwhiile you cannot present ANY scientific paper that demonstrates life evolves.I have evidence and you don't.

Humm.... that's funny! You claimed to have provided the exact same evidence to me a few days ago, that you accused me of ignoring; and when I asked you to present your evidence, you continently disappeared without a response. I am still waiting for your response. You should either back up your claims or admit you were just bluffing.

Ken

To address Abel's claim on the first page , which I assume he's referencing on the op, let me state the following.

We did not have a constant rate of birth, you cannot use the rate of birth and population to determine the age of our species. As shown below it makes no sense.
Population has boomed in the last century due to the Haber process, which has dramatically changed the earth's ability to sustain population; therefore it is impossible to calculate a consistent rate of population incline. (to 7 billion)

You could, however, calculate human population to an extent before the 19th century. This dealing with historical records, fossil records, estimation for death from disease, AND the type of society prevalent at that time ( I.E hunter and gatherer, farming et cetera. )

We can actually estimate the population of a society, such as Egypt, using the historical records/archeology of its agricultural development. But this is aside the point, just fun info.

Audie wrote:The flood story is one of the bible's built in fallacies. One of many, one of many reasons its
not a credible or particularly interesting book.

Is it the story of the YEC interpretation of it?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:The flood story is one of the bible's built in fallacies. One of many, one of many reasons its
not a credible or particularly interesting book.

Is it the story of the YEC interpretation of it?

What I said was on the absolute side, and I kinda regret it. I like to make a more nuanced statement than that.

The book interests a great many people, and I myself read it thru twice.

Parts of it are good reading, quite interesting.

I am tho puzzled by the many claims / claimants to the true reading. Some say that god gives them the power to get it right, others talk of deep scholarship... you know.

But there are so many polar opposite opinions! And then every shade between, too.

But to answer the q, yes, that would be yec readings that are plainly fallacy.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:The flood story is one of the bible's built in fallacies. One of many, one of many reasons its
not a credible or particularly interesting book.

Is it the story of the YEC interpretation of it?

What I said was on the absolute side, and I kinda regret it. I like to make a more nuanced statement than that.

The book interests a great many people, and I myself read it thru twice.

Parts of it are good reading, quite interesting.

I am tho puzzled by the many claims / claimants to the true reading. Some say that god gives them the power to get it right, others talk of deep scholarship... you know.

But there are so many polar opposite opinions! And then every shade between, too.

But to answer the q, yes, that would be yec readings that are plainly fallacy.

And I can respect that view since I myself held that view ( and still do to a certain extent).
See, the issue of the bible being divinely inspired is one that has been debated through the ages.
NOT that it IS inspired mind you But what "inspired' exactly means and what parts.

Some only view the inspired parts as those in which God is said to be speaking directly - What the prophets related, the words of Christ, etc.
Some point out that Paul said that the scriptures ARE inspired BUT note that He made an explicit comment in regards to what they are to be used for:

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Note he mentions nothing of scientific or even historical accuracy per say but is addressing morals, ethics and Theology.


One can never remove from the bible the reality that it is a collection of books, letters, prophetic readings, poetry and history and stories and that they are all desgined to impart certain values and views.
We can also never forget that the bible was NOT written TO us BUT it was written FOR Us, so we must read with the cultural understanding of the people that the various writings were directed to or else our interpretations will be faulty or even worse.