What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[dcalling]

The physical properties of crystal balls are well known too, but you can't prove them wrong either.

Why do you think that "Spiritual Trauma" doesn't manifest itself in reality through electrical currents in our bodies?

LOL my question to you is do you seriously believe in crystal balls? How much of a chance you think crystal balls are working? Has anyone demonstrated the ability to repeatable, verifiably test the success of the crystal ball?

 

[dcalling]

You stated fossils are found on mountain tops. I agreed. They are not buried deep. Many methods exist for dating fossils. Carbon is only one method. Scientists use many, and cross reference them against one another. Carbon dating does not work on items deemed millions of years old, as the half life of carbon weakens after about 60K years. Scientists already have known this, and do not use such methods for older fossils. Many other methods are used.

But you have completely avoided my question...

If homo sapiens have only been around for roughly 200K years, and the fossils found on Mt. Everest are millions of years old, how would you explain as such?

Noah would have to be older than the fossils left on top of Mt. Everest. But if the fossils are much older than the earliest homo sapiens, how do you reconcile such a conclusion?.?.?

I tried to answer your question, but as you can see your question is based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate, do you agree? So if your question is not valid (i.e. homosapiens existed only 200ky), then there is no point in your question.

Name one method that gives 100% certainty that homo sapines are only 200ky and demonstrate it is 100% accurate (or maybe over 80% accurate, and why).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If there are any atheists/skeptics here who think they're going to ruin people's faith, they're deluded.

It's good to know that you think so. Does this mean I can call upon you to refute fellow skeptics and atheists when they insist on telling us Christians just how deluded we are?

You know I'm here to argue for sport and crack the occasional joke. And after spending a lot of time arguing and lurking in the Apologetics, Politics, and Science sections over the years, it's pretty clear that no one changes their mind about anything.

I appreciate your honesty, but being that @gaara4158 says that he was a Christian when he first came to CF so many years ago, I'm thinking that at least SOME people do change their minds. For for those who don't, I think we do need to retain our realization that changing one's own mind is very difficult for almost any person to do, especially if she refuses to expand her horizon of understanding beyond what she's heretofore become accustomed to thinking and thereby emotionally attached.

There's also the matter of: what sources of influence and/or knowledge does each of us really trust?

As for myself, I do pride myself upon my ability to learn disparate ways of thinking and to empathize with different points of view. Regardless, it is strange that some skeptics talk to me as if they think I'm some kind of Evangelical who has become stultified in touting the value of biblical inerrancy, something which I know I never do. Maybe, too, it's because I'm not actually Evangelical, let alone Fundamentalist, in my Christian perceptions.

 

[cvanwey]

I tried to answer your question, but as you can see your question is based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate, do you agree? So if your question is not valid (i.e. homosapiens existed only 200ky), then there is no point in your question.

Name one method that gives 100% certainty that homo sapines are only 200ky and demonstrate it is 100% accurate (or maybe over 80% accurate, and why).

You are basically stating that 'because we may not ever find homo sapien fossils older than ~200K years ago, that does not mean they did not exist prior, just that we may never find them.' Right?

Well, this is not the only method for the conclusion for the starting age of homo sapiens.

The oldest homo sapien fossils are found in Central/South Africa dating ~200K years or so. The oldest fossils found outside Africa date much younger.

But let me give you a LARGE PASS, and assume that homo sapiens are 500K years old, and that we have not dug them up yet. Okay, we use some of the very same methods to verify the age of other fossils, (NOT carbon dating).

If all the same cross referenced methods for dating, which tell us these later yet undiscovered homo sapiens are over a half a million years in age, but the same tests results tell us the fossils on top of Mt. Everest are ~500 million years old, what might we conclude?

So I again ask, we have many ways to determine the age of things... Even if homo sapiens were way older than we currently think, we must conclude the following...

'Noah lived over 500 million years ago.' Because Noah would need to be older than the confirmed age of the fossils found on top of Mt. Everest 500 million years ago.

'Authors of the Bible didn't decide to write of such a tale until roughly 3K years ago.' That makes sense

Furthermore, you seem to be very selective in what 'science' you choose to adopt

Makes me wonder? Are you being intellectually honest with yourself?

Yes, science is not 'absolute'. However, to make the assertion of a flood account, appears to require quite a bit of 'mental gymnastics'.

 

[dcalling]

You are basically stating that 'because we may not ever find homo sapien fossils older than ~200K years ago, that does not mean they did not exist prior, just that we may never find them.' Right?

Well, this is not the only method for the conclusion for the starting age of homo sapiens.

The oldest homo sapien fossils are found in Central/South Africa dating ~200K years or so. The oldest fossils found outside Africa date much younger.

But let me give you a LARGE PASS, and assume that homo sapiens are 500K years old, and that we have not dug them up yet. Okay, we use some of the very same methods to verify the age of other fossils, (NOT carbon dating).

So I must ask, if all the same cross referenced methods for dating, which tell us these later yet undiscovered homo sapiens are over a half a million years in age, but the same tests results tell us the fossils on top of Mt. Everest are ~500 million years old, what might we conclude?

So I again ask, we have many ways to determine the age of things... Even if homo sapiens were way older than we currently think, we must conclude the following...

'Noah lived over 500 million years ago.' Because Noah would need to be older than the confirmed age of the fossils found on top of Mt. Everest 500 million years ago.

'Authors of the Bible didn't decide to write of such a tale until roughly 3K years ago.' That makes sense

Furthermore, you seem to be very selective in what 'science' you choose to adopt

Makes me wonder? Are you being intellectually honest with yourself?

Yes, science is not 'absolute'. However, to make the assertion of a flood account, appears to require quite a bit of 'mental gymnastics'.

Let me ask you, have you study the methods we used to date fossils? Do we have circular dependencies in them? How can we sometimes have soft tissues in million year old fossils? Are those ages assumptions or facts?

And, just because something is deeper, does it mean it is older?

And, we dont know when the Bible is formed either (the oral part), so you can't just say the Bible is 3k old either

Last, which science I choose to adopt and which I didn't?

 

[cvanwey]

Let me ask you, have you study the methods we used to date fossils? Do we have circular dependencies in them? How can we sometimes have soft tissues in million year old fossils? Are those ages assumptions or facts?

Here's a counter note...

The creationist scientists have complete autonomy to 'debunk' all established scientific theory. Do the creationists have, or can they present evidence to the contrary? If so, where is it? Science is free enterprise. There exists no 'high council'. The scientific method harbors no bias. Scientific theory is not a hypothesis, guess, or estimate. Scientific theory is not an idea. They are instead conclusions adhered to only after rigorous observation of presented evidence and wide peer review. Evolutionary theory is no more or less established then the theory of gravity. So I guess lets start to question gravity as well

On another note, I again assert...

The fossils you first brought up, not me, on top of mountain tops do exist So we both acknowledge they exist.

Many methods exist to demonstrate they are millions of years old.

Do you actually think Noah would have lived over 500 million years ago? It's an honest question... Because if Noah lived over half a billion years ago, you sure need to force-connect ALOT of dots to make that story fly

And, just because something is deeper, does it mean it is older?

When did I ever say 'because it is deeper?" I stated if we keep digging. Which could also mean we dig in other areas. Radiometric dating, and other methods is more-so to determine the age of fossils...

And, we dont know when the Bible is formed either (the oral part), so you can't just say the Bible is 3k old either

I'm not asserting any age quite frankly. Just that it appears improbable that the existence of Noah is over a half a billion year ago

 

[dcalling]

Here's a counter note...

The creationist scientists have complete autonomy to 'debunk' all established scientific theory. Do the creationists have, or can they present evidence to the contrary? If so, where is it? Science is free enterprise. There exists no 'high council'. The scientific method harbors no bias. Scientific theory is not a hypothesis, guess, or estimate. Scientific theory is not an idea. They are instead conclusions adhered to only after rigorous observation of presented evidence and wide peer review. Evolutionary theory is no more or less established then the theory of gravity. So I guess lets start to question gravity as well

I am simply asking questions about how accurate you think those fossile dating methods are, and how valid are they, and that is why I keep asking you about it. It is not debunking, I am simply present you that those are assumptions, not facts.

scientific evidences has to be testable, repeatable and verifiable. theory of gravity belongs to this (OK those classical theory sort of stopped working at quantum level, but they still fits scientific evidence over statically). Can you show me how fossile dating fits the above?

On another note, I again assert...

The fossils you first brought up, not me, on top of mountain tops do exist So we both acknowledge they exist.

Many methods exist to demonstrate they are millions of years old.

Do you actually think Noah would have lived over 500 million years ago? It's an honest question... Because if Noah lived over half a billion years ago, you sure need to force-connect ALOT of dots to make that story fly

When did I ever say 'because it is deeper?" I stated if we keep digging. Which could also mean we dig in other areas. Radiometric dating, and other methods is more-so to determine the age of fossils...



I'm not asserting any age quite frankly. Just that it appears improbable that the existence of Noah is over a half a billion year ago

I am not claiming Noah existed half a billions of year ago. I am simply stating that I don't know, and that possiblilty, even though small, still exists (it is like in quantum theory, where in a extreamly short time it is possible a huge energy exists then dispears, rare but possible).

 

[cvanwey]

I am simply asking questions about how accurate you think those fossile dating methods are, and how valid are they, and that is why I keep asking you about it. It is not debunking, I am simply present you that those are assumptions, not facts.

What IS a fact? Is there anything you consider a 'fact'? Or is every assertion an opinion? What is YOUR standard to determine truth/fact?

I suppose the provided link below is nothing more than random guesses, concocted by all endeavors of science, to trick people? Or, maybe we are just blindly making random guesses, and really have no clue, because we have no methodology for testing things...?

You tell me???

'Plate tectonics and fossil dating are merely guesses or opinions'. Really?.?.?.?

What you appear to be doing is to try and 'level the playing field'. We 'can't be certain about anything.' Therefore, we must envelope some level of 'faith' for all of our conclusions. I see this time and time again, and it is dishonest quite frankly.

Fossils of Mount Everest | VolcanoCafe

I am not claiming Noah existed half a billions of year ago. I am simply stating that I don't know, and that possiblilty, even though small, still exists (it is like in quantum theory, where in a extreamly short time it is possible a huge energy exists then dispears, rare but possible).

Please understand my rationale sir... To abide by the assertion (you) brought up, not me, we must...

1. Study the age of the fossils on mountain tops.
2. Conclude Noah would have needed to be older than these fossils

And accordingly to all unbiased findings, and following the evidence for plate tectonics and all various forms of collaborative dating methods, it appears that such indicated fossils are millions of years old.

So to follow your rationale, it appears nonsensical to continue with the notion that Noah could be from this long ago. Makes little sense...

But yeah, let's instead go with, 'well, anything is possible.'

Kool...

 

[Moral Orel]

LOL my question to you is do you seriously believe in crystal balls? How much of a chance you think crystal balls are working? Has anyone demonstrated the ability to repeatable, verifiably test the success of the crystal ball?

What you're describing is a lack of evidence, which is why I don't believe in them. There's a big, big, big difference between that and evidence that they don't work.

See the following claims:
A skilled psychic can foretell the future using a crystal ball.
A skilled auditor can detect spiritual trauma using an E-Meter.
A real Christian will have his prayers answered.

These are all supernatural claims and they are all unfalsifiable. What can you show me about the E-Meter? A skeptic using it and it not working? Well, that's not a skilled auditor now is it? So you haven't falsified their claim. You've also pointed out that it works on electrical currents in our skin. So what? How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality through an electrical charge in our skin? You don't know because all this supernatural Woo is indistinguishable from nonsense.

I know this feels like I'm defending Scientology as if it's credible, but I'm not. This is about the limits of what we can know. You can't know that unfalsifiable things are false, that's what it means to be unfalsifiable. You can feel that Scientology is silly, I feel the same way. But neither of us can demonstrate that it is false.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's good to know that you think so. Does this mean I can call upon you to refute fellow skeptics and atheists when they insist on telling us Christians just how deluded we are?

They're only deluded if they think they're going to change your mind, you got that right? Just because they tell you that you're deluded doesn't mean that they think they're going to convince you of that.

As for myself, I do pride myself upon my ability to learn disparate ways of thinking and to empathize with different points of view. Regardless, it is strange that some skeptics talk to me as if they think I'm some kind of Evangelical who has become stultified in touting the value of biblical inerrancy, something which I know I never do. Maybe, too, it's because I'm not actually Evangelical, let alone Fundamentalist, in my Christian perceptions.

I think people do learn a lot of different points of view, I know I have. And I'll agree that too many skeptics around here assume all Christians are fundamentalist.

 

[dcalling]

What IS a fact? Is there anything you consider a 'fact'? Or is every assertion an opinion? What is YOUR standard to determine truth/fact?

I suppose the provided link below is nothing more than random guesses, concocted by all endeavors of science, to trick people? Or, maybe we are just blindly making random guesses, and really have no clue, because we have no methodology for testing things...?

You tell me???

'Plate tectonics and fossil dating are merely guesses or opinions'. Really?.?.?.?

What you appear to be doing is to try and 'level the playing field'. We 'can't be certain about anything.' Therefore, we must envelope some level of 'faith' for all of our conclusions. I see this time and time again, and it is dishonest quite frankly.

Fossils of Mount Everest | VolcanoCafe



Please understand my rationale sir... To abide by the assertion (you) brought up, not me, we must...

1. Study the age of the fossils on mountain tops.
2. Conclude Noah would have needed to be older than these fossils

And accordingly to all unbiased findings, and following the evidence for plate tectonics and all various forms of collaborative dating methods, it appears that such indicated fossils are millions of years old.

So to follow your rationale, it appears nonsensical to continue with the notion that Noah could be from this long ago. Makes little sense...

But yeah, let's instead go with, 'well, anything is possible.'

Kool...

To me, fact is only scientific if it is repeatable, verifiable and testable, if it does not meet that standard, it is only an assumption. Do you agree of the above?

So basically, in the article, what's repeatable, verifiable and testable is the layers, exactly how long ago was the layers is not decided.

And to address your major concern, those died animals, can't they be long died before the flood of Noah's times?

 

[dcalling]

What you're describing is a lack of evidence, which is why I don't believe in them. There's a big, big, big difference between that and evidence that they don't work.

See the following claims:
A skilled psychic can foretell the future using a crystal ball.
A skilled auditor can detect spiritual trauma using an E-Meter.
A real Christian will have his prayers answered.

These are all supernatural claims and they are all unfalsifiable. What can you show me about the E-Meter? A skeptic using it and it not working? Well, that's not a skilled auditor now is it? So you haven't falsified their claim. You've also pointed out that it works on electrical currents in our skin. So what? How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality through an electrical charge in our skin? You don't know because all this supernatural Woo is indistinguishable from nonsense.

I know this feels like I'm defending Scientology as if it's credible, but I'm not. This is about the limits of what we can know. You can't know that unfalsifiable things are false, that's what it means to be unfalsifiable. You can feel that Scientology is silly, I feel the same way. But neither of us can demonstrate that it is false.

e-meter and crystal ball: those are physical and their physical properties are all well known. There is no evidence of those have any extra dimension properties. Show me any peer reviewed papers that claim they have.

Christan's prayers are not always answered either, real or not. In fact sometimes bad people's prayer got answered too.

Can some materials contain properties that we don't know yet? It can, and once they are found all people can use it. God is different, no one can use God like an emeter or crystal ball, God is sovereign above us.

And, at last, to address your concerns, I finally believed God not because prayers answered, or some super powers from relics, I believed because the message of the Bible, and combined with my life experience, I believe that message is true.

That aside, it should be much easier to see the difference between scientology and the other religions, (Buddism, Daoism, or Judism/Christianity/Islam), the difference is actually pretty big since scientology actually use a physical device and claim it can measure spiritual powers. if you can't see that, there is not much point to continue.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is no evidence of those have any extra dimension properties. Show me any peer reviewed papers that claim they have.

So what? You first made the claim that "You can't prove with 100% certainty that the Bible is false" as if you were making some point. You need to prove with 100% certainty Scientology is false or the point works for them too. That's the whole point I was making when I responded.

So, now that we agree that you can't prove Scientology wrong, and I can't prove the Bible wrong, what conclusion do you think we should draw from that point? You know, the original question I asked that you never answered because you thought you could falsify the unfalsifiable for a minute there.

Besides that, E-Meters don't need "extra dimensional properties". That would only be required of the "Spiritual Trauma". Like I kept asking, "How do you know that 'Spiritual Trauma' doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as an electrical current?" You didn't answer because you can't know. Just like crystal balls don't need extra dimensional properties, the visions produced in them do. Just like whatever people are praying about (money, health, safety and security) don't need extra dimensional properties, God does. That's why you can't disprove it, because there is always an unfalsifiable property, even if there's some entirely understood physical object in the mix.

That aside, it should be much easier to see the difference between scientology and the other religions, (Buddism, Daoism, or Judism/Christianity/Islam), the difference is HUGE. if you can't see that, there is not much point to continue.

Well, they have a "prophet" that received a "vision" about their original sin fable, and they seek to "fix" humans that are broken because of some supernatural problem that only their religion knows the answer to. The only big difference I see is how much they charge for their services. Other than that, how different are they, really?

 

[bhsmte]

...yeah, this may be the case; in fact, I got this kind of response from skeptics and atheists over on ex-Christian.net. They wanted to know "why was I there," and maybe for the reason they were afraid I had come onto their website with an agenda to challenge them, in the hope of drawing them back to Christianity rather than to just "chat."

Fortunately, I'm not naive enough to think that ANY skeptics or atheists would come onto CF with an agenda to try to ruin Christian faith and draw us away. No, I know that you're all just "here to chat." Right?

It does work both ways.

 

[dcalling]

So what? You first made the claim that "You can't prove with 100% certainty that the Bible is false" as if you were making some point. You need to prove with 100% certainty Scientology is false or the point works for them too. That's the whole point I was making when I responded.

So, now that we agree that you can't prove Scientology wrong, and I can't prove the Bible wrong, what conclusion do you think we should draw from that point? You know, the original question I asked that you never answered because you thought you could falsify the unfalsifiable for a minute there.

Besides that, E-Meters don't need "extra dimensional properties". That would only be required of the "Spiritual Trauma". Like I kept asking, "How do you know that 'Spiritual Trauma' doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as an electrical current?" You didn't answer because you can't know. Just like crystal balls don't need extra dimensional properties, the visions produced in them do. Just like whatever people are praying about (money, health, safety and security) don't need extra dimensional properties, God does. That's why you can't disprove it, because there is always an unfalsifiable property, even if there's some entirely understood physical object in the mix.


Well, they have a "prophet" that received a "vision" about their original sin fable, and they seek to "fix" humans that are broken because of some supernatural problem that only their religion knows the answer to. The only big difference I see is how much they charge for their services. Other than that, how different are they, really?

I disagree with you on that, that giving the KNOWN physical device, given then KNOW erroneous facts states in the Scientology menu about certain characters of the human body to electric, and given various statements from their founder (i.e. the way to get rich was to found a religion), I will say I can 100% sure Scientology is a fraud (maybe not everything they believed is wrong, the certainly the core part of their emeter thing is definitely a fraud).

And for Christianity, you are actually right, the Catholic Church did start to charge fees for sin redeemers, which directly contradicted to the Bible, and members of the Chruch actually died opposing that. And also Christians are not better humans, they are just humans who admit they have sins no matter how perfect they seem to be or lived.

 

[Moral Orel]

I disagree with you on that, that giving the KNOWN physical device, given then KNOW erroneous facts states in the Scientology menu about certain characters of the human body to electric, and given various statements from their founder (i.e. the way to get rich was to found a religion), I will say I can 100% sure Scientology is a fraud (maybe not everything they believed is wrong, the certainly the core part of their emeter thing is definitely a fraud).

Okay, let's go through these.

The E-Meter is a known physical device.
So what? You don't know how God interacts with physical reality, and you don't know how "spiritual trauma" interacts with physical reality.

There are erroneous facts stated in the Scientology menu about certain characters of the human body to electric.
Like what? The human body does have an electric charge that the E-Meter detects. That is a fact. It fluctuates for various reasons and the E-Meter detects those fluctuations, also a fact. Scientology claims that one of those reasons comes from "spiritual trauma". How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't cause those fluctuations?

Various statements from their founder (i.e. the way to get rich was to found a religion).
I guess you'd really need to quote him so that I know what you're on about. Did L.Ron outright say that Scientology was a sham at some point or something?

100% sure Scientology is a fraud (maybe not everything they believed is wrong, the certainly the core part of their emeter thing is definitely a fraud).
Even if you proved that the E-Meter is a fraud, and you can't, that doesn't prove anything else is false. Ergo, you can't prove Scientology wrong, so what? Why won't you answer my question? So what if you can't prove something wrong?

 

[cvanwey]

To me, fact is only scientific if it is repeatable, verifiable and testable, if it does not meet that standard, it is only an assumption. Do you agree of the above?

No.

Examples:

- 911 only happened once, and will most likely never happen again. Is it an 'assumption' or a 'fact'?

- President Lincoln only got assassinated once, and will never be again. Is it an 'assumption' or a 'fact'?

The resurrection is not testable, repeatable, and verifiable, as it is also a one time event. Hence, there exists no way (you) can assert such an event as truth, 'it is only an assumption' Do you agree?

Assumption - 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof' - Oxford dictionary

And to address your major concern, those died animals, can't they be long died before the flood of Noah's times?

Okay, lets go ahead and abandon all science, to instead go with (your) unfounded assertion. Mt. Everest is almost 30K feet above sea level. At some point, water levels would need to remain above this newly formed mountain, otherwise, the planet is no longer fully submerged. Humans need supplemental oxygen at this height. Average temperatures are 40 - 60 degrees below zero. Are you now asserting that Noah, the others, and also all surviving life would be able to endure such elements, at such heights well above sea level, for an extended duration of time?

 

[dcalling]

Okay, let's go through these.

The E-Meter is a known physical device.
So what? You don't know how God interacts with physical reality, and you don't know how "spiritual trauma" interacts with physical reality.

There are erroneous facts stated in the Scientology menu about certain characters of the human body to electric.
Like what? The human body does have an electric charge that the E-Meter detects. That is a fact. It fluctuates for various reasons and the E-Meter detects those fluctuations, also a fact. Scientology claims that one of those reasons comes from "spiritual trauma". How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't cause those fluctuations?

Various statements from their founder (i.e. the way to get rich was to found a religion).
I guess you'd really need to quote him so that I know what you're on about. Did L.Ron outright say that Scientology was a sham at some point or something?

100% sure Scientology is a fraud (maybe not everything they believed is wrong, the certainly the core part of their emeter thing is definitely a fraud).
Even if you proved that the E-Meter is a fraud, and you can't, that doesn't prove anything else is false. Ergo, you can't prove Scientology wrong, so what? Why won't you answer my question? So what if you can't prove something wrong?

1. So with an open design and open manual, still only Scientologist can operate the emeter and give accurate readings, claim the device to be infallible and can know things happened down to seconds many many years ago? With the claims from the found the best way to make money is a new religion, And you think there are remote possibilities this is not fraud?

2. Even if you can't prove something wrong, you will still have the ability of access how likely something is.

 

[dcalling]

No.

Examples:

- 911 only happened once, and will most likely never happen again. Is it an 'assumption' or a 'fact'?

- President Lincoln only got assassinated once, and will never be again. Is it an 'assumption' or a 'fact'?
The resurrection is not testable, repeatable, and verifiable, as it is also a one time event. Hence, there exists no way (you) can assert such an event as truth, 'it is only an assumption' Do you agree?

Assumption - 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof' - Oxford dictionary

You are mixing scientific facts and historical events.
911/Lincon events are well documented, agreed? on the other hand, Even of Noah, to me I believe the Bible and will state it is the truth by faith in Bible, but you will likely dispute it.

Those are historical events, (i.e. when some global flood happened).
Those are scentific facts, i.e. when a flood went through, what the sediments might look like.

Okay, lets go ahead and abandon all science, to instead go with (your) unfounded assertion. Mt. Everest is almost 30K feet above sea level. At some point, water levels would need to remain above this newly formed mountain, otherwise, the planet is no longer fully submerged. Humans need supplemental oxygen at this height. Average temperatures are 40 - 60 degrees below zero. Are you now asserting that Noah, the others, and also all surviving life would be able to endure such elements, at such heights well above sea level, for an extended duration of time?

Remember, when God flood the earth, some other events might happened, the earth might be much more smoother then now, and God could raise the mountains to make dry lands.

 

[cvanwey]

You are mixing scientific facts and historical events.
911/Lincon events are well documented, agreed? on the other hand, Even of Noah, to me I believe the Bible and will state it is the truth by faith in Bible, but you will likely dispute it.

Those are historical events, (i.e. when some global flood happened).
Those are scentific facts, i.e. when a flood went through, what the sediments might look like.

I most certainly am not mixing.

Example... How do we know Lincoln was shot? We actually have scientific evidence. We have the autopsy report from the person whom performed as such.

Example... Let's assume the trade towers were destroyed, and there were no witnesses. What would/could science conclude? You don't think the remaining evidence would point to a collapsed building, with dead bodies, and air plane remanence?

In regards to a claimed global flood, we know what evidence would be left behind for a claimed flood. Do we have as such?

Remember, when God flood the earth, some other events might happened, the earth might be much more smoother then now, and God could raise the mountains to make dry lands.

Now you are just grasping at straws. Are you actually going to address any of my points, or are you just going to keep maneuvering around?