Evidence for God from Science

I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves,yet cannot believe a world wide flood happened even if there was no evidence for a world wide flood there is no evidence in science life evolves,yet she'll believe it with no evidence.Audie has never offered evidence life evolves and I know there is none and yet she believes life evolves anyway,yet refuses to believe in a world wide flood without evidence. If she can accept evolution? Then she could accept a world wide flood regardless if there is evidence or not.

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

actually scientists have just recently found all that water? like, a year ago? let me see if i can find it...ya, 2 years ago, i guess


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+disco ... 2__&ia=web

All the water from a mythical flood?

ha, good point; but i accept "the flood" as useful mythology, meant to convey a lesson across millenia, and not a "factual" thing. Surely developed from "localized" flooding.

What lesson might that be?

If what you say is so, what is the takeaway lesson about the accuracy of bible accounts?

um, i am light on the lesson of the Ark, myself, but i do know that Genesis is of course acknowledged to be mythology (by which i do not mean "myth" as we define it now, but rather the collected Wisdom of mankind, up to that point, related in parables, around campfires, etc), and the Ark may be related to one's self, and one's walk.

So, one might read a story about a guy who "Built an Ark" to "Save Himself from a Coming Flood," "Gathering animals by "Twos," (and oh, by "Sevens," hmm), and then proceed to debate the likelihood of such an occurrence, and/or such a Global Flood, or one might recognize, when they are ready, the symbology being presented, 2 of the unclean, 7 of the clean, etcetc, and understand the parable on a different level.

The Book is God~Breathed, and unassailable in my opinion; but this does not mean that i go searching for "facts" or "proof" in It, to "test" It for "accuracy" or "discrepancies" which are irrelevant, or, more often, prolly entirely, placed there to convey more information to those reading wine rather than water, so to speak.

Philip wrote:

my enduring fav. is that the extra water was wafted to Neptune, where it shines even unto this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

I did not write this - I think Audie did.

Correct, I did write that.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:actually scientists have just recently found all that water? like, a year ago? let me see if i can find it...ya, 2 years ago, i guess


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=science+disco ... 2__&ia=web

All the water from a mythical flood?

ha, good point; but i accept "the flood" as useful mythology, meant to convey a lesson across millenia, and not a "factual" thing. Surely developed from "localized" flooding.

What lesson might that be?

If what you say is so, what is the takeaway lesson about the accuracy of bible accounts?

um, i am light on the lesson of the Ark, myself, but i do know that Genesis is of course acknowledged to be mythology (by which i do not mean "myth" as we define it now, but rather the collected Wisdom of mankind, up to that point, related in parables, around campfires, etc), and the Ark may be related to one's self, and one's walk.

So, one might read a story about a guy who "Built an Ark" to "Save Himself from a Coming Flood," "Gathering animals by "Twos," (and oh, by "Sevens," hmm), and then proceed to debate the likelihood of such an occurrence, and/or such a Global Flood, or one might recognize, when they are ready, the symbology being presented, 2 of the unclean, 7 of the clean, etcetc, and understand the parable on a different level.

The Book is God~Breathed, and unassailable in my opinion; but this does not mean that i go searching for "facts" or "proof" in It, to "test" It for "accuracy" or "discrepancies" which are irrelevant, or, more often, prolly entirely, placed there to convey more information to those reading wine rather than water, so to speak.

Inaccurate, and unassailable.

but yeah, the collected wisdom of a people. (not mankind)

abelcainsbrother wrote:I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves,yet cannot believe a world wide flood happened even if there was no evidence for a world wide flood there is no evidence in science life evolves,yet she'll believe it with no evidence.Audie has never offered evidence life evolves and I know there is none and yet she believes life evolves anyway,yet refuses to believe in a world wide flood without evidence. If she can accept evolution? Then she could accept a world wide flood regardless if there is evidence or not.

Come on abe, concocting some hypocrisy on my part, based on your unique and profoundly ignorant opinion that there is no evidence for evolution?

If there were evidence of a flood, i'd accept it, despite your claim to the contrary. Im not the ideolog here. Nor am I uneducated.

YOU ignore the clear and obvious proof that there was no flood. Or rather, you try to explain it away first with "oh, the ice floated but just stayed in place and settled back down." Pure fantasy of course. "circumpolar current kept it there". I think you dropped it (with no admission that the idea was worthless) when I pointed out the difficulty of getting the ice to settle back exactly as it was before. Never mind that it would break up and melt.

So the new "explanation' is-the ice is stuck down! Never mind that glaciers often have liquid water under them, never mind that they are moving (hence cant very well be "stuck"), never mind the thousands of tons of lift per square foot that being submerged would provide
to defeat the feeble adhesion of ice to rock..if it were stuck. Which it isnt.

The claim that polar ice was "stuck down" is plain silly, and cannot be supported with any trace of reason or even sanity.

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:
All the water from a mythical flood?

ha, good point; but i accept "the flood" as useful mythology, meant to convey a lesson across millenia, and not a "factual" thing. Surely developed from "localized" flooding.

What lesson might that be?

If what you say is so, what is the takeaway lesson about the accuracy of bible accounts?

um, i am light on the lesson of the Ark, myself, but i do know that Genesis is of course acknowledged to be mythology (by which i do not mean "myth" as we define it now, but rather the collected Wisdom of mankind, up to that point, related in parables, around campfires, etc), and the Ark may be related to one's self, and one's walk.

So, one might read a story about a guy who "Built an Ark" to "Save Himself from a Coming Flood," "Gathering animals by "Twos," (and oh, by "Sevens," hmm), and then proceed to debate the likelihood of such an occurrence, and/or such a Global Flood, or one might recognize, when they are ready, the symbology being presented, 2 of the unclean, 7 of the clean, etcetc, and understand the parable on a different level.

The Book is God~Breathed, and unassailable in my opinion; but this does not mean that i go searching for "facts" or "proof" in It, to "test" It for "accuracy" or "discrepancies" which are irrelevant, or, more often, prolly entirely, placed there to convey more information to those reading wine rather than water, so to speak.

Inaccurate, and unassailable.

but yeah, the collected wisdom of a people. (not mankind)

well, i see that if one wants to solicit "facts" or "proof" from Scripture, then they can "see" plenty of inaccuracies, yes. This might be characterized--possibly ungenerously--as "can't see the forest for the trees," perhaps.

As to "unassailable," this concept obviously goes out the window, the first time someone determines that they have found an "inaccuracy," i guess, right? And i note that we are all told to read the Book for ourselves, with the Spirit as our guide, which who do you know that does that? i certainly didn't; not for 40 years (hmm, 40). i did...what pretty much everyone else does, which is to trust people, people's doctrines, that they assured me had been developed from a thoughtful contemplation of Scripture. Exactly what Paul did not do, for three years, and what i should not have done, iow.

So, i came to realize that God does not abrogate a person's free will, and this is actually established by one's interpretations of Scriptural passages, wherein one reveals their heart, or their joints and marrow are divided, iow.

As to "(not mankind)," i would offer that the last five of the Decalogue predate Hammurabi, and were written at least 18,000 years ago, and i suspect (iow, i have no Witness for this) that Scripture was being formulated in Babylon, from its founding, if not even earlier, in the form of mythology, demonstrably before any Hebrews came upon the scene, as the last five tell us.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves,yet cannot believe a world wide flood happened even if there was no evidence for a world wide flood there is no evidence in science life evolves,yet she'll believe it with no evidence.Audie has never offered evidence life evolves and I know there is none and yet she believes life evolves anyway,yet refuses to believe in a world wide flood without evidence. If she can accept evolution? Then she could accept a world wide flood regardless if there is evidence or not.

Come on abe, concocting some hypocrisy on my part, based on your unique and profoundly ignorant opinion that there is no evidence for evolution?

If there were evidence of a flood, i'd accept it, despite your claim to the contrary. Im not the ideolog here. Nor am I uneducated.

YOU ignore the clear and obvious proof that there was no flood. Or rather, you try to explain it away first with "oh, the ice floated but just stayed in place and settled back down." Pure fantasy of course. "circumpolar current kept it there". I think you dropped it (with no admission that the idea was worthless) when I pointed out the difficulty of getting the ice to settle back exactly as it was before. Never mind that it would break up and melt.

So the new "explanation' is-the ice is stuck down! Never mind that glaciers often have liquid water under them, never mind that they are moving (hence cant very well be "stuck"), never mind the thousands of tons of lift per square foot that being submerged would provide
to defeat the feeble adhesion of ice to rock..if it were stuck. Which it isnt.

The claim that polar ice was "stuck down" is plain silly, and cannot be supported with any trace of reason or even sanity.

Nope,it is silly for you to believe life evolves without any evidence to show it does and yet reject a world wide flood based on what you think is not evidence.If you can believe life evolves without ever seeing it evolve and have no evidence to show it does then you could believe a world wide flood happened without having seen it and no evidence. You're being biased in what you can believe without evidence.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves,yet cannot believe a world wide flood happened even if there was no evidence for a world wide flood there is no evidence in science life evolves,yet she'll believe it with no evidence.Audie has never offered evidence life evolves and I know there is none and yet she believes life evolves anyway,yet refuses to believe in a world wide flood without evidence. If she can accept evolution? Then she could accept a world wide flood regardless if there is evidence or not.

Come on abe, concocting some hypocrisy on my part, based on your unique and profoundly ignorant opinion that there is no evidence for evolution?

If there were evidence of a flood, i'd accept it, despite your claim to the contrary. Im not the ideolog here. Nor am I uneducated.

YOU ignore the clear and obvious proof that there was no flood. Or rather, you try to explain it away first with "oh, the ice floated but just stayed in place and settled back down." Pure fantasy of course. "circumpolar current kept it there". I think you dropped it (with no admission that the idea was worthless) when I pointed out the difficulty of getting the ice to settle back exactly as it was before. Never mind that it would break up and melt.

So the new "explanation' is-the ice is stuck down! Never mind that glaciers often have liquid water under them, never mind that they are moving (hence cant very well be "stuck"), never mind the thousands of tons of lift per square foot that being submerged would provide
to defeat the feeble adhesion of ice to rock..if it were stuck. Which it isnt.

The claim that polar ice was "stuck down" is plain silly, and cannot be supported with any trace of reason or even sanity.

Nope,it is silly for you to believe life evolves without any evidence to show it does and yet reject a world wide flood based on what you think is not evidence.If you can believe life evolves without ever seeing it evolve and have no evidence to show it does then you could believe a world wide flood happened without having seen it and no evidence. You're being biased in what you can believe without evidence.

There is no evidence that you are willing to / capable of understanding or accepting would be more correct.

Your soul, should you have one, is not improved by constantly restating these
falsehoods about science or about me. That goes also for the false claim that
you dont insult anyone. Your falsehoods about my integrity are deeply insulting.

If there's no soul, then it is just your integrity that is you've trashed.
A person with something real to say has no need to resort to
concocting falsehoods.

That said, here is a deal: You cease posts such as the above, and I
will neither address anything to you nor make any reference to you or any of your silly ideas. As in, you do not exist.

Deal? Im sure it would be much the the relief of the beleguered reading public.

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:ha, good point; but i accept "the flood" as useful mythology, meant to convey a lesson across millenia, and not a "factual" thing. Surely developed from "localized" flooding.

What lesson might that be?

If what you say is so, what is the takeaway lesson about the accuracy of bible accounts?

um, i am light on the lesson of the Ark, myself, but i do know that Genesis is of course acknowledged to be mythology (by which i do not mean "myth" as we define it now, but rather the collected Wisdom of mankind, up to that point, related in parables, around campfires, etc), and the Ark may be related to one's self, and one's walk.

So, one might read a story about a guy who "Built an Ark" to "Save Himself from a Coming Flood," "Gathering animals by "Twos," (and oh, by "Sevens," hmm), and then proceed to debate the likelihood of such an occurrence, and/or such a Global Flood, or one might recognize, when they are ready, the symbology being presented, 2 of the unclean, 7 of the clean, etcetc, and understand the parable on a different level.

The Book is God~Breathed, and unassailable in my opinion; but this does not mean that i go searching for "facts" or "proof" in It, to "test" It for "accuracy" or "discrepancies" which are irrelevant, or, more often, prolly entirely, placed there to convey more information to those reading wine rather than water, so to speak.

Inaccurate, and unassailable.

but yeah, the collected wisdom of a people. (not mankind)

well, i see that if one wants to solicit "facts" or "proof" from Scripture, then they can "see" plenty of inaccuracies, yes. This might be characterized--possibly ungenerously--as "can't see the forest for the trees," perhaps.

As to "unassailable," this concept obviously goes out the window, the first time someone determines that they have found an "inaccuracy," i guess, right? And i note that we are all told to read the Book for ourselves, with the Spirit as our guide, which who do you know that does that? i certainly didn't; not for 40 years (hmm, 40). i did...what pretty much everyone else does, which is to trust people, people's doctrines, that they assured me had been developed from a thoughtful contemplation of Scripture. Exactly what Paul did not do, for three years, and what i should not have done, iow.

So, i came to realize that God does not abrogate a person's free will, and this is actually established by one's interpretations of Scriptural passages, wherein one reveals their heart, or their joints and marrow are divided, iow.

As to "(not mankind)," i would offer that the last five of the Decalogue predate Hammurabi, and were written at least 18,000 years ago, and i suspect (iow, i have no Witness for this) that Scripture was being formulated in Babylon, from its founding, if not even earlier, in the form of mythology, demonstrably before any Hebrews came upon the scene, as the last five tell us.

Surely you are joking.

Audie wrote:

Mark wrote:As to "(not mankind)," i would offer that the last five of the Decalogue predate Hammurabi, and were written at least 18,000 years ago, and i suspect (iow, i have no Witness for this) that Scripture was being formulated in Babylon, from its founding, if not even earlier, in the form of mythology, demonstrably before any Hebrews came upon the scene, as the last five tell us.

Surely you are joking.

ah, well, i am not intentionally lying, no, so what is your understanding there? where did

12“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13“You shall not murder.
14“You shall not commit adultery.
15“You shall not steal.
16“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”


originate, in your understanding? where did "Love your neighbor" originate? are you suggesting that Moses came down the Mountain with them, and that that was mankind's initial exposure to them? ty

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Mark wrote:As to "(not mankind)," i would offer that the last five of the Decalogue predate Hammurabi, and were written at least 18,000 years ago, and i suspect (iow, i have no Witness for this) that Scripture was being formulated in Babylon, from its founding, if not even earlier, in the form of mythology, demonstrably before any Hebrews came upon the scene, as the last five tell us.

Surely you are joking.

ah, well, i am not intentionally lying, no, so what is your understanding there? where did

12“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
13“You shall not murder.
14“You shall not commit adultery.
15“You shall not steal.
16“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”


originate, in your understanding? where did "Love your neighbor" originate? are you suggesting that Moses came down the Mountain with them, and that that was mankind's initial exposure to them? ty

Not joking then. You might like to research your date a bit tho.

As for the others, they come from an English translation of what was written in various other languages, and have been observed by cultures around the world and through time.

Other than 12 and 16, those are observed among other social animals.


I'd be among the last to say Moses first introduced them, or that there even was such an event or person.

i dug, because i was initially challenged by the info that Moses did not in fact invent them or whatever, bring them down from a mountain, and i was informed that Hammurabi made them up, and then discovered that they even predated Hammurabi, and i got as far back as...Mesopotamia, i think? circa 16,000 BC.

so, if you got better info, love to hear it! ty

bbyrd009 wrote:i dug, because i was initially challenged by the info that Moses did not in fact invent them or whatever, bring them down from a mountain, and i was informed that Hammurabi made them up, and then discovered that they even predated Hammurabi, and i got as far back as...Mesopotamia, i think? circa 16,000 BC.

so, if you got better info, love to hear it! ty

I dont think you are trying very hard.

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I have noticed that Audie will defend the ToE with zero evidence life evolves,yet cannot believe a world wide flood happened even if there was no evidence for a world wide flood there is no evidence in science life evolves,yet she'll believe it with no evidence.Audie has never offered evidence life evolves and I know there is none and yet she believes life evolves anyway,yet refuses to believe in a world wide flood without evidence. If she can accept evolution? Then she could accept a world wide flood regardless if there is evidence or not.

Come on abe, concocting some hypocrisy on my part, based on your unique and profoundly ignorant opinion that there is no evidence for evolution?

If there were evidence of a flood, i'd accept it, despite your claim to the contrary. Im not the ideolog here. Nor am I uneducated.

YOU ignore the clear and obvious proof that there was no flood. Or rather, you try to explain it away first with "oh, the ice floated but just stayed in place and settled back down." Pure fantasy of course. "circumpolar current kept it there". I think you dropped it (with no admission that the idea was worthless) when I pointed out the difficulty of getting the ice to settle back exactly as it was before. Never mind that it would break up and melt.

So the new "explanation' is-the ice is stuck down! Never mind that glaciers often have liquid water under them, never mind that they are moving (hence cant very well be "stuck"), never mind the thousands of tons of lift per square foot that being submerged would provide
to defeat the feeble adhesion of ice to rock..if it were stuck. Which it isnt.

The claim that polar ice was "stuck down" is plain silly, and cannot be supported with any trace of reason or even sanity.

Nope,it is silly for you to believe life evolves without any evidence to show it does and yet reject a world wide flood based on what you think is not evidence.If you can believe life evolves without ever seeing it evolve and have no evidence to show it does then you could believe a world wide flood happened without having seen it and no evidence. You're being biased in what you can believe without evidence.

There is no evidence that you are willing to / capable of understanding or accepting would be more correct.

Your soul, should you have one, is not improved by constantly restating these
falsehoods about science or about me. That goes also for the false claim that
you dont insult anyone. Your falsehoods about my integrity are deeply insulting.

If there's no soul, then it is just your integrity that is you've trashed.
A person with something real to say has no need to resort to
concocting falsehoods.

That said, here is a deal: You cease posts such as the above, and I
will neither address anything to you nor make any reference to you or any of your silly ideas. As in, you do not exist.

Deal? Im sure it would be much the the relief of the beleguered reading public.

You can't handle the truth and nothing I said is insulting as I do not insult,you are the one who has insulted,not me. But if you can't handle the truth and don't want to communicate,that is your choice.You have defended evolution and you accept it and yet have never seen life evolve and have no evidence it does and yet believe it anyway but when it comes to things in the bible your need for evidence goes up unfairly.This is based on your posts and things you've posted and I'm not insulting you by pointing out your bias against God and his word.

...never seen life evolve and have no evidence it does...

Coywolf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coywolf
and later iterations, now being observed in Canada.

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:i dug, because i was initially challenged by the info that Moses did not in fact invent them or whatever, bring them down from a mountain, and i was informed that Hammurabi made them up, and then discovered that they even predated Hammurabi, and i got as far back as...Mesopotamia, i think? circa 16,000 BC.

so, if you got better info, love to hear it! ty

I dont think you are trying very hard.

so then, i acknowledge that you are the master then, ok? i got maybe 20 minutes in that.

But i notice that you still have not served anyone here--anyone else, i mean.