Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What special rules of geology or courts or science rule out what God can or can not do?
That some want to claim the answers science gives are the ONLY possible explanations is understood, but it is still not true those possibilities are ruled out simply because one wishes they were.
Circular reasoning. You may as well say, "Someone formed a theory, and the simulation someone made based on the theory matched their theory, therefore the theory must be correct."
Please take a look at the three graphs below and explain what is circular reasoning with them.
The gray in the graphs is the model, the red are actual measurements. When the model (a) relies only of natural climate forcings it does not match the actual data. The second model (b) uses only anthropogenic climate forcings. It is a better match but still a bit off. Now look at the third graph, it includes both natural and anthropogenic forcings. It is well within statistical reliability limits. There is nothing circular about climate models.
No, don't you know how to read?
Where did I say I deny them? I may attribute them to another entity, but I never deny them.
Again, who says it had to be 'recent', and what does that mean?
You can argue anything you want, as proven by your AGW argument.This is an important question.
Can I stand in a court of law and argue that DNA and fingerprint evidence can be excluded because God could have planted that evidence at the crime scene?
For what they're worth, yes.You accept all of the occurrences that happened in the Roman and Greek legends?
Claimed by whom? And who's to say how long humans were around before the flood???It is claimed that the flood occurred when humans were around on Earth, so that limits the flood to at least the last 200,000 years which is recent in geologic terms.
You can argue anything you want, as proven by your AGW
.Claimed by whom? And who's to say how long humans were around before the flood???
We also know the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution (280 ppmv) is due to fossil fuels (402 ppmv) because of the carbon isotope (13C/12C) ratios.Also, by comparing (a) and (c) you can determine the contribution from human activity, which is the difference between the grey and red line in (a).
We also know the additional amount of CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution (280 ppmv) is due to fossil fuels (402 ppmv) because of the carbon isotope (13C/12C) ratios.
Off topic.Would you accept the argument that DNA and fingerprint evidence should be thrown out of court because God could have planted the evidence?
Are you claiming that because something is a myth that there's no truth to it?Aren't you claiming that the global flood is recounted in human myths?
How do you know that there arent H. sapiens fossils below that? Have you journeyed to the center of the earth?Also, the first H. sapiens fossils appear in the fossil record about 200,000 years ago as determined by radiometric dating.
Off topic.
Are you claiming that because something is a myth that there's no truth to it?
How do you know that there arent H. sapiens fossils below that? Have you journeyed to the center of the earth?
God created the natural processes, why would he not use them?If the flood Noah experienced was natural, what would be the point of saying God did it?
We could suppose all sorts of things about a Supernatural events as we are not limited to natural processes.
I think it's funny that someone questions the existence of God, but not the existence of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. There's more proof of the existence of God than there ever will be about AGW.
Please take a look at the three graphs below and explain what is circular reasoning with them.
The gray in the graphs is the model, the red are actual measurements. When the model (a) relies only of natural climate forcings it does not match the actual data. The second model (b) uses only anthropogenic climate forcings. It is a better match but still a bit off. Now look at the third graph, it includes both natural and anthropogenic forcings. It is well within statistical reliability limits. There is nothing circular about climate models.
What special rules of geology or courts or science rule out what God can or can not do?
Answer none.
It is only a question in the minds of those Christians suggesting God could only have the earth flooded naturally such that it would have to leave what would be evident to us today as a single global flood. Am not sure why Christians would want to limit God to acting in manner that would appear to us now the same as a natural flood would.But the question still remains. Why do all the physical geology processes contradict a global flood? Perhaps it is a translation where context of the time for the word "world" does not mean the physical global world as we understand it today. Perhaps maybe Noah's world, a regional flood?
My point of view concerning the flood is from a non-literal interpretation of the event, as well as what the context of the word "world" would mean to the people of that time. I am looking at it as a description of Noah's "world", not the entire earth. And as I mentioned earlier, the 8200 event rising global sea level by about 2 meters due to the Lake Agassiz outbreak breaching the St. of Bosphorus increasing the size of the Black Sea by more than a third and encroaching a portion of the mountains of Ararat satisfies both the biblical and scientific descriptions.It is only a question in the minds of those Christians suggesting God could only have the earth flooded naturally such that it would have to leave what would be evident to us today as a single global flood. Am not sure why Christians would want to limit God to acting in manner that would appear to us now the same as a natural flood would.
A supernatural event does not have to be sudden.So science cannot disprove supernatural event or say the evidence proves it did not happen. They can only suggest they see nothing indicating a global flood based on what a natural flood can be seen to produce. Such statements suggest nothing about what a supernatural event could or could not do.
Again, there are both literal and non-literal views of the flood event by Christians.The Bible has a pretty specific description of water depth over the top of the highest locally known mountains. To generate flood waters that high without flooding the whole world, there would need be a wall of water of supernaturally held in place for forty days that is over 14K feet tall or so and of sufficient breadth all around that the ark never approaches or can see an edge. I suppose one could imagine God creating a giant fishbowl, but am not sure how such a belief is easier than a global flood.
Again, literal vs. non-literal.How that drowns all animals, all creeping things and all birds on the whole earth besides those on the ark would be most unclear, but God said He was doing that too. Am not sure why such a local flood becomes easier for the Christians to believe in.
I fail to see how someone's fallacious appeal to a supernatural frame job in court done to be free of responsibility compares to a belief in an actual supernatural event.In a court of law, can you have DNA or fingerprint evidence excluded because you claim God planted the evidence at the crime scene? Last I checked, you can't.
The same applies to all of science. You can't have evidence excluded simply because you assert a supernatural mechanism can produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes.
By arguing against the science, you are tacitly admitting that the science points to a lack of a global flood.
The proper question would be why should we think He has too?God created the natural processes, why would he not use them?
A. Am certainly no scientist, but that does not mean I cannot recognize the limitations of observation of natural events.A. Then you're not doing science.
B. You're proposing a trickster god and sower of confusion who is not the God of the Bible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?