What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[cvanwey]

I already told you, it is a boundry of your ability on logical thinking.You need to be able to follow simple logic first before we can discuss others which requires more logic.
Scientific facts are testable, verifiable and repeatable, which I stated multiple times, and you keep mention events such as 911 as scientific facts when they are just events, and tried your best to muddy the waters and refuse to admit that you are wrong.

Post 234 and post 237.

Again, you need to be able to follow simple logic, first that the sun vaporizing all H2O is not my example, and second you can always find H20 (not just from other planet, but by combine H2 and O2). You can't do that to 911 or other historical events.

If I clean up/remove/destroy all evidence for the 911 event (collapsed buildings, plane debris, dead bodies, etc), then I can no longer test it further.

If I clean up/remove/destroy all hydrogen, then I can no longer test it further.

They are both testable, until you remove evidence of their asserted claims.

Good, but instead of just stating something is impossible, state your evidences.

Aside from an assertion from the Bible, and your assertion in this thread, what evidence have you provided? I provided a link about Mt. Everest. It has quite a bit of information on there. You dismissed it all. Why would I need to provide more? I could, but what is the point?

We know what evidence a flood would leave behind, because we have evidence for such. Just like we would have evidence for the claims of a 911 event Nothing suggests as such from the Bible.

Not only you need to get your logic straight, you also need to stop putting word into my mouth. I challenge you to find such post of mine, want to accept that challenge?

Post 233, you stated:

'For a flood, a world changing event will definitly change much of the land scope, i.e. plate movenent, huge earthquakes or voluncan erruptions.'

Well, the Bible suggests the flood happened within a year, give or take. If plate tectonics happened/happens very slowly, then where would a flood come into play?

Post 235, you stated:

'Nope, but I believe God can move it real fast, which of course you don't believe'

You are denying evidence for plate tectonics. So YOU need to prove your assertion, and not just blankly assert as such.

Again, we are going in loops, you did not answer my question which will blow your question into pieces. How sure are you at the age of Mt. Everest? How do you know if it is millions or billions year old? Can you even answer that question?

Let's start here... Not my assertion, one from another source. Go to point #60, of the '60 asserted facts'. Care to challenge it? I'm not a Geologist, are you?

Conquering Everest: 60 facts about the world's tallest mountain

Assuming you have no evidence to refute this assertion, now demonstrate that humans are older than Mt. Everest?

 

[Hawkins]

Because there is no reason to believe an old book like Exodus. We need a parting of the Red Sea TODAY in front of an expectant crowd of skeptics.

What for? Such that no humans can be saved?

The New Covenant between God and men specifies that humans need to be saved by faith, not evidence!

God is omnipotent enough not to leave evidence such that humans can be saved by faith. It remains your own dilemma to even ask for evidence.

 

[Hawkins]

Let's cut to the chase. Claimed food events are testable, and repeatably testable at that... We know the characteristics of what makes a flood. The evidence left makes no suggestions of such a claimed flood, local or global, from Biblical proportions.

Why do you have to assume that it's flood in the first place. Noah just witnessed what he saw that the best word for such an ancient human to describe it as flood. It by no means says that it's scientifically a flood. Since when you see a flood which can bury the mountains?

Most science starts with observation. If it's a "flood" which you can never observe, it may not be a flood at all.

If an ancient human said that "I am walking on the surface of a flat earth.", he's speaking from what he can witness or observe, it by no means says that scientifically the earth is flat.

 

[bhsmte]

What for? Such that no humans can be saved?

The New Covenant between God and men specifies that humans need to be saved by faith, not evidence!

God is omnipotent enough not to leave evidence such that humans can be saved by faith. It remains your own dilemma to even ask for evidence.

If that works for you personally, terrific.

The thing is, some folks are not swayed by that type of thought process.

 

[Hawkins]

If that works for you personally, terrific.

The thing is, some folks are not swayed by that type of thought process.

It's not a variance of thought. It's all about logic!

And the logic is simple. If God is evident then humans are not saved. Then why should an omnipotent God leave His evidence to humans?

 

[bhsmte]

It's not a variance of thought. It's all about logic!

And the logic is simple. If God is evident then humans are not saved. Then why should an omnipotent God leave His evidence to humans?

Lets just say, i dont follow your logic.

 

[dcalling]

Post 234 and post 237.

If I clean up/remove/destroy all evidence for the 911 event (collapsed buildings, plane debris, dead bodies, etc), then I can no longer test it further.

If I clean up/remove/destroy all hydrogen, then I can no longer test it further.

They are both testable, until you remove evidence of their asserted claims.

Here you go again showing you don't understand the differences between scientific facts and historical events. And this is why we need to get your logic straight before proceed.
Scientific facts are testable, verifiable and repeatable, which I stated multiple times, and you keep mention events such as 911 as scientific facts when they are just events.

You can't clean up/remove/destroy all hydrogen. Hydrogen will still exists long after 911 is lost in history due to some catastrophic events. Do you agree?

Aside from an assertion from the Bible, and your assertion in this thread, what evidence have you provided? I provided a link about Mt. Everest. It has quite a bit of information on there. You dismissed it all. Why would I need to provide more? I could, but what is the point?

We know what evidence a flood would leave behind, because we have evidence for such. Just like we would have evidence for the claims of a 911 event Nothing suggests as such from the Bible.

Believing the Bible requires faith since our current scientific advances can't prove nor disprove the Bible.

However this thread I am not here to prove you the Bible is right, I am here due to your claim that your evidences prove the Bible wrong, so we are here to analyze your evidences.

Post 233, you stated:

'For a flood, a world changing event will definitly change much of the land scope, i.e. plate movenent, huge earthquakes or voluncan erruptions.'

Well, the Bible suggests the flood happened within a year, give or take. If plate tectonics happened/happens very slowly, then where would a flood come into play?

Post 235, you stated:

'Nope, but I believe God can move it real fast, which of course you don't believe'

You are denying evidence for plate tectonics. So YOU need to prove your assertion, and not just blankly assert as such.

You totally misread my statements. The first one I simply means any of such world chaning events will partially/totally destroy the evidence for a world wide flood, in responding to you comments about there is no evidence.

The second one I mean God can move the plates much faster, not sure why you change it to "I deny evidence of plat". Please read them carefully.

Let's start here... Not my assertion, one from another source. Go to point #60, of the '60 asserted facts'. Care to challenge it? I'm not a Geologist, are you?

Conquering Everest: 60 facts about the world's tallest mountain

Assuming you have no evidence to refute this assertion, now demonstrate that humans are older than Mt. Everest?

A random website with a single line stating Mt Everest is x years old is not enough. You can't trust assertions without knowing WHY. We all need to think for ourselves at some point.

A much better argument will be, i.e. you saw evidence in radio/carbon(carbon is just here for example, it won't do the year the site claimed) dating, relative layers, rock formations etc, and the evidences collaborated to support your claim.

 

[dcalling]

That's not proof. That's not even evidence. That's a lack of evidence. I thought it was you theists were supposed to be the ones pointing out that "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".

It is better then your so called instinct

Ironically, I can't believe that you can't see how similar they all are.

Nope. Scientology used certain ways of the major world religions but the difference between Scientology and all the major world religions are day and night. Even you with you, who can't believe in anything unless there are evidence believe Scientology is fake (and you claim it is just your instince, but I am pretty sure it is due to evidences).

 

[Hawkins]

Lets just say, i dont follow your logic.

Like I said, the logic is really simple.

1. God is assumed to be omnipotent, so He has control over whether evidence shall be made available to humans or not.
Please answer yes or no.

2. If He choose to leave evidence to humans, it means that humans are not saved
Please answer do you understand this point or not.

If so, then why should God leave any evidence? Such that no humans can be saved?

I can't help that much if you don't understand the simplicity. This however is usually the case when atheists start to lose an argument. They can be very much logical before that point. I am speculating the reason behind why they behave so.

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said, the logic is really simple.

1. God is assumed to be omnipotent, so He has control over whether evidence shall be made available to humans or not.
Please answer yes or no.

2. If He choose to leave evidence to humans, it means that humans are not saved
Please answer do you understand this point or not.

If so, then why should God leave any evidence? Such that no humans can be saved?

I can't help that much if you don't understand the simplicity. This however is usually the case when atheists start to lose an argument. They can be very much logical before that point. I am speculating the reason behind why they behave so.

Here is where we differ; i dont start with assumptions in using logic, because the logic will be tainted by the assumption.

 

[cvanwey]

Here you go again showing you don't understand the differences between scientific facts and historical events. And this is why we need to get your logic straight before proceed.
Scientific facts are testable, verifiable and repeatable, which I stated multiple times, and you keep mention events such as 911 as scientific facts when they are just events.

You can't clean up/remove/destroy all hydrogen. Hydrogen will still exists long after 911 is lost in history due to some catastrophic events. Do you agree?

It is you whom does not seem to get it...

You have 'faith' or believe Noah's flood is a 'fact'. You have faith, or believe that, because it is in the Bible, it IS true - the asserted and claimed 'big-book-of-truth', given/directed/authored by God. A fact can be testable, verifiable, and/or repeatable, as long as the evidence for the claim sticks around. Once all evidence is gone, all claims for such may be more apt to then instead become an unfalsifiable claim.

Well, we still have evidence for 911. The reason I use 911, is we have far more evidence for 911, than we do for a claimed global flood. It should be the exact opposite! A global flood would have left undeniable evidence, regardless of if it was 5K years ago, or 5 million. And yet, just for starters, all observations lead to the contrary, (unless you are keen on the creationist 'scientist's' assertions). We see no layer of chaos, where living organisms, which would have no worldly business living in the same time period, are mixed in this one layer of chaos.

And to address your final statement...

'You can't clean up/remove/destroy all hydrogen. Hydrogen will still exists long after 911 is lost in history due to some catastrophic events. Do you agree?'

After enough time passes, all evidence will be destroyed Time is the indicator. At some point, if the universe expires, all hydrogen will cease to 'exist.'

To drive this home...

You have 'faith' the Bible is 'true'. If something is true, it would not have an expiration date Well, if it is true, will the Bible still hold true about a flood claim after the world 'expires'?

Without evidence, it then becomes unfalsifiable. But guess what, we have the means and opportunity to test for or verify such declarations, for both a claimed flood and a claimed 911 account.

Nothing you have brought forth demonstrates a flood could have happened. Just blank meaningless assertions.

Believing the Bible requires faith since our current scientific advances can't prove nor disprove the Bible.

Your statement appears both true and false, at the same time.

True, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable over all, such as resurrection claims, healing claims, etc....

False, in the sense that science can falsify some of it's claims; hence, the reason I am addressing the 'flood claim.' I claim the flood can be falsified with evidence, or proven with evidence. Just as you can for the claim of 911

However this thread I am not here to prove you the Bible is right, I am here due to your claim that your evidences prove the Bible wrong, so we are here to analyze your evidences.

My claim is simple, 'no flood, no Bible.'

Why? The Bible claims truth. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. If something as large as the flood is disproven, what else is not true? I'm only addressing the falsifiable claims. A flood claim is falsifiable. So where is YOUR evidence that the flood happened? I provided a link demonstrating how plate tectonics works. You assert that the flood happened prior to the formation of Mt. Everest. This places Noah at millions of years old. But all evidence also suggests humans weren't around that long ago.

Please explain.

You totally misread my statements. The first one I simply means any of such world chaning events will partially/totally destroy the evidence for a world wide flood, in responding to you comments about there is no evidence.

Do we actually have any evidence to suggest a flood? You mentioned long ago, when we look all around us, we see evidence that much of the world was under water. And yet, now you state a flood would partially/totally destroy the evidence? So which one is it?

The second one I mean God can move the plates much faster, not sure why you change it to "I deny evidence of plat". Please read them carefully.

I'll tell you why... Studies show that the mantel is what causes plates to move. What possible reason would God have to move the plates? Also, show me one verse in the Bible which suggests as such, vague or specific? You are invoking an unfalsifiable blank assertion.

A random website with a single line stating Mt Everest is x years old is not enough. You can't trust assertions without knowing WHY. We all need to think for ourselves at some point.

But somehow, your assertions thus far prove you are reasonably thinking for yourself? As I stated, the link was provided to suggest that geologists agree with the assertion. If you have evidence to discredit the geological arena, please let them know why they are mistaken, present the evidence, change the world, and win a Nobel prize. It's that easy

 

[cvanwey]

Why do you have to assume that it's flood in the first place. Noah just witnessed what he saw that the best word for such an ancient human to describe it as flood. It by no means says that it's scientifically a flood. Since when you see a flood which can bury the mountains?

Beg to differ... If below is not quite clear, on the asserted and implied message, then so is the claims of a resurrection. Maybe the resurrection was a metaphor or something....

Noah and the Flood
9 This is the account of Noah and his family.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypressc]">[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.d]">[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubite]">[e] high all around.f]">[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.

Most science starts with observation. If it's a "flood" which you can never observe, it may not be a flood at all.

Um, we can assess the evidence left behind. A flood would leave some

If an ancient human said that "I am walking on the surface of a flat earth.", he's speaking from what he can witness or observe, it by no means says that scientifically the earth is flat.

If I had my knowledge today, the first thing I would ask this ancient would be, 'is the world actually flat?' Then I would know if the author was speaking figuratively or literally. Today's author, I would assume the author was speaking figuratively, (unless is was reading a pamphlet from a flater-earther's convention or something). Back then, who knows?

 

[Moral Orel]

It is better then your so called instinct

So you finally admit you can't prove it wrong! Great!

Even you with you, who can't believe in anything unless there are evidence believe Scientology is fake (and you claim it is just your instince, but I am pretty sure it is due to evidences).

That's not true. I believe some things based on feelings, hunches, instincts, my gut, etc. I never said I don't. But those are mostly things that are unfalsifiable.

If I don't believe something, and it's true, I hope I could be convinced by real evidence. If I do believe something, and it's false, I hope I could be convinced by real evidence as well. I'm not going to pretend I am a perfect logical machine, but I try to be when it comes to beliefs. You aren't under the delusion that you're a perfect logical machine are you?

 

[Chriliman]

Like I said, the logic is really simple.

1. God is assumed to be omnipotent, so He has control over whether evidence shall be made available to humans or not.
Please answer yes or no.

2. If He choose to leave evidence to humans, it means that humans are not saved
Please answer do you understand this point or not.

If so, then why should God leave any evidence? Such that no humans can be saved?

I can't help that much if you don't understand the simplicity. This however is usually the case when atheists start to lose an argument. They can be very much logical before that point. I am speculating the reason behind why they behave so.

Where do get that God leaving evidence prevents salvation?

Evidence of God and subsequent faith is what brings salvation.

 

[dcalling]

It is you whom does not seem to get it...

You have 'faith' or believe Noah's flood is a 'fact'. You have faith, or believe that, because it is in the Bible, it IS true - the asserted and claimed 'big-book-of-truth', given/directed/authored by God. A fact can be testable, verifiable, and/or repeatable, as long as the evidence for the claim sticks around. Once all evidence is gone, all claims for such may be more apt to then instead become an unfalsifiable claim.

Well, we still have evidence for 911. The reason I use 911, is we have far more evidence for 911, than we do for a claimed global flood. It should be the exact opposite! A global flood would have left undeniable evidence, regardless of if it was 5K years ago, or 5 million. And yet, just for starters, all observations lead to the contrary, (unless you are keen on the creationist 'scientist's' assertions). We see no layer of chaos, where living organisms, which would have no worldly business living in the same time period, are mixed in this one layer of chaos.

It is actually hard for me now to assert if you really can't get your logic straight or just trying to muddy the waters

Anyway let's try again. Scientific facts are repeatable, verifiable and testable, do you agree? So water can be combined by H2 and O2 are testable, repeatable and verifiable.

Historical events, such as 911, are not repeatable. We can only verify by existing records either memory (hard/soft copies of books/videos) or human testimonials, pules evidences gathered through other scientific facts (i.e. how hot air plan fuel/paper burn under certain conditions).

So both 911 and floods are historical events, they are not scientific facts, their validatiy are only sustained by existing records and findings. You keep trying to muding the waters between scientific facts and historical events, trying to claim they are the same, which is wrong. No matter how much evidence you have for some historical events, they are STILL not scientific facts. Do you now realize that now?

And to address your final statement...

'You can't clean up/remove/destroy all hydrogen. Hydrogen will still exists long after 911 is lost in history due to some catastrophic events. Do you agree?'

After enough time passes, all evidence will be destroyed Time is the indicator. At some point, if the universe expires, all hydrogen will cease to 'exist.'

To drive this home...

You have 'faith' the Bible is 'true'. If something is true, it would not have an expiration date Well, if it is true, will the Bible still hold true about a flood claim after the world 'expires'?

Without evidence, it then becomes unfalsifiable. But guess what, we have the means and opportunity to test for or verify such declarations, for both a claimed flood and a claimed 911 account.

Nothing you have brought forth demonstrates a flood could have happened. Just blank meaningless assertions.

Again you are confused about facts, historical events and scientific facts. Those are simple logics that you just seems constantly get confused.

If the global flood is true (which I believe and you don't), even if all the evidences are destroies, it still happened and will always be true (just we can't confirm it). So facts are always facts.

Historical events on the other hand may or may not be true, we can only assert the validatiy based on current evidences and collboarting records.

scientific facts are repeatable, verifiable and testable. Even if you magically remove all hydrogen, we might still at sometime be able to produce hydrogen through other means and test h2o.

Your statement appears both true and false, at the same time.

True, in the sense that it is unfalsifiable over all, such as resurrection claims, healing claims, etc....

False, in the sense that science can falsify some of it's claims; hence, the reason I am addressing the 'flood claim.' I claim the flood can be falsified with evidence, or proven with evidence. Just as you can for the claim of 911



My claim is simple, 'no flood, no Bible.'

Why? The Bible claims truth. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. If something as large as the flood is disproven, what else is not true? I'm only addressing the falsifiable claims. A flood claim is falsifiable. So where is YOUR evidence that the flood happened? I provided a link demonstrating how plate tectonics works. You assert that the flood happened prior to the formation of Mt. Everest. This places Noah at millions of years old. But all evidence also suggests humans weren't around that long ago.

Please explain.

So this get to the validate of the flood. Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows there is no global flood. Once you have done that you can claim the flood is disproven. Show me a peer reviewed paper that asserts Mt Everst is absolutely X millions year old, show me a peer reviewed paper that shows humans can't exist before Y million years. The above is called science, if you can't do that and yet claim such things, that is either called faith or assumptions (or your imagination).

Do we actually have any evidence to suggest a flood? You mentioned long ago, when we look all around us, we see evidence that much of the world was under water. And yet, now you state a flood would partially/totally destroy the evidence? So which one is it?



I'll tell you why... Studies show that the mantel is what causes plates to move. What possible reason would God have to move the plates? Also, show me one verse in the Bible which suggests as such, vague or specific? You are invoking an unfalsifiable blank assertion.



But somehow, your assertions thus far prove you are reasonably thinking for yourself? As I stated, the link was provided to suggest that geologists agree with the assertion. If you have evidence to discredit the geological arena, please let them know why they are mistaken, present the evidence, change the world, and win a Nobel prize. It's that easy

Remember, I am not here to prove the flood is true, I jump in the thread to dispute your claim that a global flood is impossible. You can't totally falsify or validate a historical event, you can only assert how likely they are true/false since they are NOT scientific facts. (which get back to my first statement, you need to get your logic straight).

 

[dcalling]

So you finally admit you can't prove it wrong! Great!

What I said is "It is better then your so called instinct", not sure how you read it as above.

That's not true. I believe some things based on feelings, hunches, instincts, my gut, etc. I never said I don't. But those are mostly things that are unfalsifiable.

Do you believe the Bible is falsible?

If I don't believe something, and it's true, I hope I could be convinced by real evidence. If I do believe something, and it's false, I hope I could be convinced by real evidence as well. I'm not going to pretend I am a perfect logical machine, but I try to be when it comes to beliefs. You aren't under the delusion that you're a perfect logical machine are you?

We are similar in this regard. So you do believe something sometimes event if real evidence is not available based on instinct and partial evidences?

 

[Moral Orel]

What I said is "It is better then your so called instinct", not sure how you read it as above.

I read it that way because what you presented isn't even evidence. That line, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is true. You presented an absence of evidence, which means you do not present any evidence whatsoever.

Do you believe the Bible is falsible?

Falsifiable? Nope. For a few things we could quibble over scientific facts like the flood I saw you and the other fella discussing, but at any point you please you, as the theist, can simply invoke magic to explain anything away, and I can't rule that out as a possibility.

We are similar in this regard. So you do believe something sometimes event if real evidence is not available based on instinct and partial evidences?

Yep, I think we all do. It's important to me to recognize the difference between my gut feelings and what I can demonstrate though.

 

[cvanwey]

It is actually hard for me now to assert if you really can't get your logic straight or just trying to muddy the waters

Anyway let's try again. Scientific facts are repeatable, verifiable and testable, do you agree? So water can be combined by H2 and O2 are testable, repeatable and verifiable.

Historical events, such as 911, are not repeatable. We can only verify by existing records either memory (hard/soft copies of books/videos) or human testimonials, pules evidences gathered through other scientific facts (i.e. how hot air plan fuel/paper burn under certain conditions).

So both 911 and floods are historical events, they are not scientific facts, their validatiy are only sustained by existing records and findings. You keep trying to muding the waters between scientific facts and historical events, trying to claim they are the same, which is wrong. No matter how much evidence you have for some historical events, they are STILL not scientific facts. Do you now realize that now?

Archaeology - 'the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.'

Archaeology is under the realm of science. If I were to choose archaeology as my career path, I would be required to study the sciences, it to, falls within the realm of science.

Under the real of science, I must be able to repeatably test.

Again you are confused about facts, historical events and scientific facts. Those are simple logics that you just seems constantly get confused.

I agree we are going in 'loops' here. What you fail to recognize, is a historical event can be a scientific fact. However, once the evidence is gone, all bets are off. It then becomes a blank assertion. So is the flood claim a scientific fact? Hurry, we can still test for it

If the global flood is true (which I believe and you don't), even if all the evidences are destroies, it still happened and will always be true (just we can't confirm it). So facts are always facts.

I would agree with your hypothetical. But as I've stated a few times now, I'm only addressing the falsifiable claims. The flood is falsifiable. Just like I can falsify your claim that your house was flooded last week, unless you remove all the evidence (by removing and replacing all the areas and telling me you fixed it).

But in the case for a 'global flood', I doubt God would remove/replace as such

Historical events on the other hand may or may not be true, we can only assert the validatiy based on current evidences and collboarting records.

In the case for the 'flood', evidence would be there, unless you claim 'magic', and God removed it all.

So this get to the validate of the flood. Show me a peer reviewed paper that shows there is no global flood. Once you have done that you can claim the flood is disproven. Show me a peer reviewed paper that asserts Mt Everst is absolutely X millions year old, show me a peer reviewed paper that shows humans can't exist before Y million years. The above is called science, if you can't do that and yet claim such things, that is either called faith or assumptions (or your imagination).

If scientists conclude that Mt. Everest and homo sapiens are X number of years old, which they have through testable means, why would they need to also go on record to state the ages they aren't? Because the Bible exists? This would mean when science makes a conclusion about anything, they would need to add disclaimers in their concluded findings which state something to the effect of..., 'well, so this proves that the assertions from this holy book and that holy text are wrong.'

Seriously?

- Geologists conclude Mt. Everest is millions of years old. End of story... So demonstrate the evidence that Mt. Everest is not millions of years old.

- Science has concluded homo sapiens are only a few 100,000 years old. So demonstrate the evidence that homo sapiens are older, if you cannot locate sufficient evidence to dismantle the findings for the age of Mt. Everest.

Remember, I am not here to prove the flood is true, I jump in the thread to dispute your claim that a global flood is impossible. You can't totally falsify or validate a historical event, you can only assert how likely they are true/false since they are NOT scientific facts. (which get back to my first statement, you need to get your logic straight).

Noted, But you did not answer my question... What would be the reason for God to speed up plate tectonics? So far, the only validation you have provided, is 'magic.'

 

[dcalling]

I read it that way because what you presented isn't even evidence. That line, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is true. You presented an absence of evidence, which means you do not present any evidence whatsoever.

What I am presenting is evidences against Scientology. You are claiming that you can't prove it wrong due to "absence of evidence"?

Falsifiable? Nope. For a few things we could quibble over scientific facts like the flood I saw you and the other fella discussing, but at any point you please you, as the theist, can simply invoke magic to explain anything away, and I can't rule that out as a possibility.

Yep, I think we all do. It's important to me to recognize the difference between my gut feelings and what I can demonstrate though.

At least you are more logical then the other guy who keep get confused about events and scientific facts.

 

[dcalling]

Archaeology - 'the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains.'

Archaeology is under the realm of science. If I were to choose archaeology as my career path, I would be required to study the sciences, it to, falls within the realm of science.

Under the real of science, I must be able to repeatably test.

I agree we are going in 'loops' here. What you fail to recognize, is a historical event can be a scientific fact. However, once the evidence is gone, all bets are off. It then becomes a blank assertion. So is the flood claim a scientific fact? Hurry, we can still test for it

Science is the method we try to study this world, we learn through assumptions and try to affirm our assumptions via scientific facts, i.e. the repeatable, verifiable tests on this world (which you keep confused about historic events, even bring in 911 and won't admit).

Which means science study both scientific facts and have assumptions. i.e. how old is earth, which is an assumption, estimated (we don't really know but we try to GUESS based on existing scientific fact we know), and could be wrong as we discover more scientific facts.

And that is why you keep thinking that I somehow "flood claim a scentific fact", your own word, just shows how confused you are.

I would agree with your hypothetical. But as I've stated a few times now, I'm only addressing the falsifiable claims. The flood is falsifiable. Just like I can falsify your claim that your house was flooded last week, unless you remove all the evidence (by removing and replacing all the areas and telling me you fixed it).

OK, since you claim that global flood is falsifiable, go ahead and present your evidence.

But in the case for a 'global flood', I doubt God would remove/replace as such


In the case for the 'flood', evidence would be there, unless you claim 'magic', and God removed it all.

If scientists conclude that Mt. Everest and homo sapiens are X number of years old, which they have through testable means, why would they need to also go on record to state the ages they aren't? Because the Bible exists? This would mean when science makes a conclusion about anything, they would need to add disclaimers in their concluded findings which state something to the effect of..., 'well, so this proves that the assertions from this holy book and that holy text are wrong.'

Seriously?

- Geologists conclude Mt. Everest is millions of years old. End of story... So demonstrate the evidence that Mt. Everest is not millions of years old.

- Science has concluded homo sapiens are only a few 100,000 years old. So demonstrate the evidence that homo sapiens are older, if you cannot locate sufficient evidence to dismantle the findings for the age of Mt. Everest.

Show me the peer reviewed paper how they concluded those. How firm are they on that conclusion? And do you realize that new findings could easily change those so called "conclusions"? Do you know what an assumption is?

Noted, But you did not answer my question... What would be the reason for God to speed up plate tectonics? So far, the only validation you have provided, is 'magic.'

If God wants the water to recede faster, why He can't not make tectonic plate move faster?