Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:"abelcainsbrother"]

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

I am aware that you think that there is "no evidence" for evolution. This is incorrect.
No matter how many times you say it.

Also, of course, it is profoundly unrealistic for you to think that though essentially the entire scientific community of the world finds there is good and sufficient evidence, you, with next to no understanding of the subject, are right and they are wrong.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood.

If there was no flood, then that puts a coffin nail in your gap. Not that it is the only thing that does, but that will do.

Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water.

Now, I am going to skip the rest of what you said, and concentrate on one thing.

Yes you are right, you did, quite unnecessarily because it is simple and obvious to all, point out that ice can be stuck down underwater.

Then you extrapolate to say that an entire continental ice sheet can also stay stuck down underwater. That is profoundly unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Lets see if you wish to try to deny either of them.

1) Glaciers are not stuck down. They move, sliding along the bedrock.

2) The adhesive power of ice-to-stone is not remotely adequate to resist the
enormous buoyant force that would be exerted by five miles of ice underwater.

The latter point is of course an even-if, since the ice is not stuck down.

You have conceded that the ice predates any possible date for your
"Naosh ark" bit.

You know, however stubborn you may be about admitting it, that the polar
ice and all the mountain glaciers would float if they were flooded.

You know that the ice would then float about, melting and disintegrating.

You have tried three different contradictory stories to get out of this.

First, that the ice floated but didnt melt, then settled back in place.
You had to concede that this was unrealistic.

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

Then, you went for a hybrid of the two errors, that the ice was stuck, but the top half somehow came off, floated, then set back down.

None of that is remotely realistic, as even you know.

Now, I do understand that you are married to your beliefs, one of which is that "God" shows you how to do inerrant bible readin' and so your faith in a literal world wide flood such as in your fantasy is in fact infallible knowledge.

You are so married to your 'flood" that you grasp wildly at the silliest ideas to try to rescue it.

Why? Are you going to die if you admit you are wrong about anything?


haha

Never mind that. Lets see you try to deny that glaciers move, and claim they are stuck down. (keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib)

(you like videos, I can provide one from a camera under a glacier, showing in time lapse the movement)

crochet1949 wrote:Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

Jac3510 wrote:You know, ACB is always saying he is open minded and willing to be shown he is wrong and willing to look at evidence. I wonder if he'll prove himself honest on that point.

I thought about holding my breath. Decided not to. No excuse for suicide.

crochet1949 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Kurieuo wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, times are set according to time zone set in profile.

Kurieuo wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Now -- I'm going back Again to try to locate the 8:58 am post.

The earliest am post is 9:33. And the one I quoted back was from 10:58.

So -- what exactly are you referring to?

You're suggesting that nothing good can come of 'this'. That's your call.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, times are set according to time zone set in profile.

crochet1949 wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:"abelcainsbrother"]

You just choose to put your faith in what man is speculating about and does not have evidence life evolves,no matter how much faith you put into believing it. I choose to put faith in God's word that has far,far more evidence it is true.

I am aware that you think that there is "no evidence" for evolution. This is incorrect.
No matter how many times you say it.

Also, of course, it is profoundly unrealistic for you to think that though essentially the entire scientific community of the world finds there is good and sufficient evidence, you, with next to no understanding of the subject, are right and they are wrong.

Also the ice being stuck down only had to do with Noah's flood.

If there was no flood, then that puts a coffin nail in your gap. Not that it is the only thing that does, but that will do.

Atleast I have evidence in certain circumstances ice can remain stuck to the bottom submerged under water.

Now, I am going to skip the rest of what you said, and concentrate on one thing.

Yes you are right, you did, quite unnecessarily because it is simple and obvious to all, point out that ice can be stuck down underwater.

Then you extrapolate to say that an entire continental ice sheet can also stay stuck down underwater. That is profoundly unreasonable for obvious reasons.

Lets see if you wish to try to deny either of them.

1) Glaciers are not stuck down. They move, sliding along the bedrock.

2) The adhesive power of ice-to-stone is not remotely adequate to resist the
enormous buoyant force that would be exerted by five miles of ice underwater.

The latter point is of course an even-if, since the ice is not stuck down.

You have conceded that the ice predates any possible date for your
"Naosh ark" bit.

You know, however stubborn you may be about admitting it, that the polar
ice and all the mountain glaciers would float if they were flooded.

You know that the ice would then float about, melting and disintegrating.

You have tried three different contradictory stories to get out of this.

First, that the ice floated but didnt melt, then settled back in place.
You had to concede that this was unrealistic.

Then, you decided the ice was stuck down.

Then, you went for a hybrid of the two errors, that the ice was stuck, but the top half somehow came off, floated, then set back down.

None of that is remotely realistic, as even you know.

Now, I do understand that you are married to your beliefs, one of which is that "God" shows you how to do inerrant bible readin' and so your faith in a literal world wide flood such as in your fantasy is in fact infallible knowledge.

You are so married to your 'flood" that you grasp wildly at the silliest ideas to try to rescue it.

Why? Are you going to die if you admit you are wrong about anything?


haha

Never mind that. Lets see you try to deny that glaciers move, and claim they are stuck down. (keep in mind, your god does not like people to fib)

(you like videos, I can provide one from a camera under a glacier, showing in time lapse the movement)

Talk about someone being 'married' to their opinions. And you have No problem poking fun at those who choose to believe in an 'antiquated' 'God'. IF He indeed exists. I'll state for the record that those are Your comments -- not mine. Your 'god' -- if you even recognize a need For one -- are the sciences of geology / paleonology. Probably not the correct spelling. You've acknowledged the existence of 'gods' in various cultures in the world. You have No problem considering any form of Bible study / knowledge an exercise in futility. Our beliefs are considered to be Fantasy while Your are to be taken as absolute Truth. Well -- the Reason that God flooded the world isn't anything to be laughed at.

crochet1949 wrote:I really don't see what there is To pursue -- unless it's the ice age thing. Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

crochet1949 wrote: Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:I really don't see what there is To pursue -- unless it's the ice age thing. Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

Not much I guess, if you wish to hold to the unfortunate things you decidrd to think about me.

As for "ice age" the picture you draw is not at all accurate, but I kind of dont think that is of intetest to you.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote: Apparently there was a short ice age as a result of the flood. So, what are your thoughts.

Apparently? What does "apparently" mean? It ought to mean "it is apparent that ..." but it is certainly not apparent to me. Is it apparent to you? On what basis?