Scientific proof that God exists?

[cryptodevil]

Ok.  I can see that my beliefs are considered "crazy."

Not necessarily 'crazy', you are, after all, only the result of your theist conditioning. Your delusions are real to you, yet the reason they feel so real is because you have been trained to only perceive that which supports the theist perspective and to readily accept any article or prose that also serves to support your conditioning or those that attempt to rubbish objectively-reasoned arguments that run counter to it. It is an insidious state of mind, indeed.

Like most middle-aged atheists I, too, was once afflicted with theist conditioning and I spent decades trying to figure out why none of it ever seemed to fit properly or make sense. I even once roundly declared that, surely, no atheist could ever truly believe that there was literally nothing waiting for us when we die, I felt that it would drive a person insane to live without the belief that their sentience would continue on after their physical form expired.

I sat on the fence of agnosticism for many a year until, eventually, I could no longer ignore the fact that, like deities and demons, there was no evidence for the existence of what we call the human 'soul' either.

Then everything made sense.

I didn't exist before I existed in this life and that doesn't appear to have been a problem, so there's little reason to believe that not existing anymore after I die will be a bother either. At least I got to exist. That's pretty damn cool.

So let's say for the sake of argument that you are right and I am crazy.  I live my entire life believing the Bible is true and then I die.  Well if atheism is true then what will it matter?

After you die? Nothing will matter, whether you were a decent person or a monster, nothing will matter to you anymore, only those who are left behind in the ripples of your actions.

but I feel like God has spared me from many horrible choices and kept me from hurting myself along the way.

How about, instead, the person to thank for making the right choices and keeping you safe, was you all along?

How about, instead, the cause of misery and suffering in this world isn't a mythical force we call 'Evil' but, rather, simply the toxic dysfunction we reap and sow through our delusional and disordered psychologies resulting from the normalisation of harmful sociofamilial environments we are raised in?
http://developingchild.harvard.edu/key_concepts/toxic_stress_response/

The brains of adults who have experienced sustained periods of toxic stress during childhood nurture are physically different from those who have been raised in an emotionally healthy and positive sociofamilial environment. Put simply, messed-up children tend to become messed-up adults, many of whom like to cite, "It didn't do me any harm" as they fail to be able to see the harm it actually did do while they go about repeating it and inflicting it on their children.

But even so, let's say that I missed some "good times" that is the worst thing that will happen if the Bible isn't true then, isn't it?

Come on, you're smart enough to be clearly considering both of our words, why go ruining it now by ignoring the reality of life living amongst 7 billion other individuals on this planet: "Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for a good person to do bad things, that takes religion."

But let's say that a person who believed in what the evolutionary scientists said was true and that they evolved from "primordial soup."  This person would then live their life doing whatever they felt was right to them and perhaps enjoy the perceived freedom this brings.  But what would happen when they die if they were wrong?"  The Bible warns of incredible suffering where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for all of eternity.  

Do you genuinely believe that atheists cannot live a decent and constructive life?

Do you genuinely believe that, if you did not have your God you would choose to live a dysfunctional and destructive life? If so, don't let me change your mind.

I Will the scientists be able to help the people after death if they misled them?  Will these people be able to barter with God and say, "Oh sorry.  My bad.  I just believed in what the scientists taught me?"

Don't fall into the trap of 'Scientists say . . .' Understand the the Scientific Method is there for all to employ. Don't accept a fact because of the authority of someone, accept it because it is a well-reasoned position with objectively supporting evidence that can be tested by anybody.

Example:
You know I am right about lightning being electricity, but you know that because you understand the testing that can be done to prove it to be so. You don't have to test it yourself but you could if you wanted to. That's science.

Theism tells you to believe because theism tells you to believe. The Bible is holy because God says it is Holy and God is real because The Bible says so. That is called circular-logic.

Who do you want your reality to be shaped by, the guy who explains to you not to go walking out on the hill in the lightning storm because of the risk that your body may cause a lightning charge to go to ground through it, or the man in the silly hat who tells you it'll be fine because he's mumbling magic words to an invisible deity while holding his hands in a special symbol to keep you safe?

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

[acs267]

I never got this:

If there was life on Mars, another planet, or, a very, very, far away Galaxy - how is the book of Genesis consistent when it comes to that? What if this 'life' were either humanoid and/or very hard to distinguish from humans.

Keep in mind at this point in time, it would've been greatly impossible for Adam and Eve to know what a human specifically was since the term was invented afterwards, I assume. (If it wasn't - that makes absolutely no sense at all.)

How would this coincide with Genesis?

Since really no one has any proof at this moment of distant life, and, in those days they didn't know the classifications of a human...
----

Anyway, to a different tone:

Another error in Genesis (I'm sure this was brought up already), I'm pretty sure it's been proved that the flood didn't happen. There have been trees dating back to 4,000 years old. We wouldn't have fossilized plants, either, older than that.

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt.
----

Plus it's the whole Bible-diet thing, but, let's not get into that.

You should read the Space Trilogy books by C.S Lewis if the idea of life on other planets and with a connection to Genesis if that interests you.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with the thought that God could have created more people in another galaxy if He chose too.  Who knows, maybe He did and they are doing a far better job than we are?  Maybe Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit and sin never entered their world?  I like to joke though that if there was centuries of people that had avoided eating the fruit, knowing that I have a problem not indulging in curiosity, I would have been the one to eat it!    

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas.  How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

You must've missed it:

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt. Not to mention, when he created the world, I was disappointed to not see any dinosaurs mentioned.

There's no validity if there's a ton of stories. There's something called FOLKLORE and it's a part of every culture. Should we believe that, too?

And, the population of Earth is estimated and always will be. Using this in that context is highly inaccurate.

[username18333]

. . .

What is more shocking than the idea of two of each kind of animals being on a ark?  How about all animals evolving from some primordial soup (which is essentially what evolution teaches)  That is even crazier!  

Since everything (that is, that exact opposite of nothing) exists, the only "craz[y]" proposition is one which contains negative assertions.

[BitChick]

I never got this:

If there was life on Mars, another planet, or, a very, very, far away Galaxy - how is the book of Genesis consistent when it comes to that? What if this 'life' were either humanoid and/or very hard to distinguish from humans.

Keep in mind at this point in time, it would've been greatly impossible for Adam and Eve to know what a human specifically was since the term was invented afterwards, I assume. (If it wasn't - that makes absolutely no sense at all.)

How would this coincide with Genesis?

Since really no one has any proof at this moment of distant life, and, in those days they didn't know the classifications of a human...
----

Anyway, to a different tone:

Another error in Genesis (I'm sure this was brought up already), I'm pretty sure it's been proved that the flood didn't happen. There have been trees dating back to 4,000 years old. We wouldn't have fossilized plants, either, older than that.

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt.
----

Plus it's the whole Bible-diet thing, but, let's not get into that.

You should read the Space Trilogy books by C.S Lewis if the idea of life on other planets and with a connection to Genesis if that interests you.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with the thought that God could have created more people in another galaxy if He chose too.  Who knows, maybe He did and they are doing a far better job than we are?  Maybe Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit and sin never entered their world?  I like to joke though that if there was centuries of people that had avoided eating the fruit, knowing that I have a problem not indulging in curiosity, I would have been the one to eat it!    

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas.  How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

You must've missed it:

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt. Not to mention, when he created the world, I was disappointed to not see any dinosaurs mentioned.

There's no validity if there's a ton of stories. There's something called FOLKLORE and it's a part of every culture. Should we believe that, too?

And, the population of Earth is estimated and always will be. Using this in that context is highly inaccurate.

The dating of trees gives a close estimate but not an exact date.  The fact that the oldest tree we can find on earth is said to be 5000 years old, when the earth is considered billions of years old, should make a person pause for a moment and question what happened about that time.  Shouldn't we find thousands of trees older than that otherwise?

[BitChick]

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

And I very much NEED a "diety!"  I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul.  I would just question if that risk is a good one and if it will work for you if you happen to be wrong.   Will believing in ourselves be enough to pay the price for our sins?

[username18333]

I never got this:

If there was life on Mars, another planet, or, a very, very, far away Galaxy - how is the book of Genesis consistent when it comes to that? What if this 'life' were either humanoid and/or very hard to distinguish from humans.

Keep in mind at this point in time, it would've been greatly impossible for Adam and Eve to know what a human specifically was since the term was invented afterwards, I assume. (If it wasn't - that makes absolutely no sense at all.)

How would this coincide with Genesis?

Since really no one has any proof at this moment of distant life, and, in those days they didn't know the classifications of a human...
----

Anyway, to a different tone:

Another error in Genesis (I'm sure this was brought up already), I'm pretty sure it's been proved that the flood didn't happen. There have been trees dating back to 4,000 years old. We wouldn't have fossilized plants, either, older than that.

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt.
----

Plus it's the whole Bible-diet thing, but, let's not get into that.

You should read the Space Trilogy books by C.S Lewis if the idea of life on other planets and with a connection to Genesis if that interests you.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with the thought that God could have created more people in another galaxy if He chose too.  Who knows, maybe He did and they are doing a far better job than we are?  Maybe Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit and sin never entered their world?  I like to joke though that if there was centuries of people that had avoided eating the fruit, knowing that I have a problem not indulging in curiosity, I would have been the one to eat it!    

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas.  How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

You must've missed it:

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt. Not to mention, when he created the world, I was disappointed to not see any dinosaurs mentioned.

There's no validity if there's a ton of stories. There's something called FOLKLORE and it's a part of every culture. Should we believe that, too?

And, the population of Earth is estimated and always will be. Using this in that context is highly inaccurate.

The dating of trees is not an exact science.  The fact that the oldest tree we can find on earth is said to be 5000 years old, when the earth is considered billions of years old, should make a person pause for a moment and question what happened about that time.  Shouldn't we find thousands of trees older than that otherwise?

(Lattermost emphasis mine.)

Shouldn't we find a singular, global layer of sedimentary deposits correspondent to flooding?

[username18333]

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

And I very much NEED a "diety!"  I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul.  I would just question if that risk is a good one and if it will work for you if you happen to be wrong.   Will believing in ourselves be enough to pay the price for our sins?

(Emphasis mine.)

Your being does not contain within it entropy sufficient for "free[dom]." (And, indeed, it is for "His Spirit" that you have so known deprivation.)

[BitChick]

I never got this:

If there was life on Mars, another planet, or, a very, very, far away Galaxy - how is the book of Genesis consistent when it comes to that? What if this 'life' were either humanoid and/or very hard to distinguish from humans.

Keep in mind at this point in time, it would've been greatly impossible for Adam and Eve to know what a human specifically was since the term was invented afterwards, I assume. (If it wasn't - that makes absolutely no sense at all.)

How would this coincide with Genesis?

Since really no one has any proof at this moment of distant life, and, in those days they didn't know the classifications of a human...
----

Anyway, to a different tone:

Another error in Genesis (I'm sure this was brought up already), I'm pretty sure it's been proved that the flood didn't happen. There have been trees dating back to 4,000 years old. We wouldn't have fossilized plants, either, older than that.

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt.
----

Plus it's the whole Bible-diet thing, but, let's not get into that.

You should read the Space Trilogy books by C.S Lewis if the idea of life on other planets and with a connection to Genesis if that interests you.  

Personally, I don't have a problem with the thought that God could have created more people in another galaxy if He chose too.  Who knows, maybe He did and they are doing a far better job than we are?  Maybe Eve didn't eat the forbidden fruit and sin never entered their world?  I like to joke though that if there was centuries of people that had avoided eating the fruit, knowing that I have a problem not indulging in curiosity, I would have been the one to eat it!    

What do you mean about no proof that the flood happened?  The fact that trees only date back 4000 years proves something must have caused all the trees to die at that point?  It is estimated that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC.  The fact that there are no trees older than this brings great validity to a world wide flood.  Also, there are over 200 (I have even heard over 300) flood stories from different cultures around the world.  Here is a link to read more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html  The fact that there are stories with similarities in all these cultures that did not speak to each other should cause at least someone to think that there is validity to it. Also, there are fossils of sea creatures in the middle of Kansas and in the Himilayas.  How would sea creatures be at these locations without a flood?  Also, if we look at the number of people on the earth there had to be a catastrophic event that happened about 4000 to 4500 years ago too because the population of the earth at the rate of growth per year coincides with this time.

You must've missed it:

Methuselah is literally 5,000 years old. The water pressure would've killed it or tore it's roots away by erosion of the dirt. Not to mention, when he created the world, I was disappointed to not see any dinosaurs mentioned.

There's no validity if there's a ton of stories. There's something called FOLKLORE and it's a part of every culture. Should we believe that, too?

And, the population of Earth is estimated and always will be. Using this in that context is highly inaccurate.

The dating of trees is not an exact science.  The fact that the oldest tree we can find on earth is said to be 5000 years old, when the earth is considered billions of years old, should make a person pause for a moment and question what happened about that time.  Shouldn't we find thousands of trees older than that otherwise?

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

Consider the sedimentary rock layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona  This sequence of layers is not unique to that region of the USA. For more than 50 years geologists have recognized that these strata belong to six megasequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of sedimentary rock layers) that can be traced right across North America.

The lowermost sedimentary layers in Grand Canyon are the Tapeats Sandstone, belonging to the Sauk Megasequence. It and its equivalents (those layers comprised of the same materials) cover much of the USA . We can hardly imagine what forces were necessary to deposit such a vast, continent- wide series of deposits. Yet at the base of this sequence are huge boulders  and sand beds deposited by storms. Both are evidence that massive forces deposited these sediment layers rapidly and violently right across the entire USA. Slow-and-gradual (present-day uniformitarian) processes cannot account for this evidence, but the global catastrophic Genesis Flood surely can.

Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Megasequence of North America. So the same limestones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limestones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them.

Unfortunately, these limestones have been given different names in other locations because the geologists saw only what they were working on locally and didn’t realize that other geologists were studying essentially the same limestone beds in other places. Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features.

Also, a 1/40 scale of the Grand Canyon was made after Mt. St. Helen's erupted in 3 days.  It did not take millions of years.  We can observe this.  In fact, now we know this was how the Grand Canyon was made. 

[BADecker]

You don't need a deity to make the right choices in life, you've already proved that to yourself.

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

And I very much NEED a "diety!"  I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul.  I would just question if that risk is a good one and if it will work for you if you happen to be wrong.   Will believing in ourselves be enough to pay the price for our sins?

Your being does not contain within it entropy sufficient for "free[dom]."

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

[cryptodevil]

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

Ok, I am starting to think I was mistaken about your willingness to consider you may be wrong, judging by your, badly misinformed, statements regarding geology, you are simply regurgitating the garbage and lies from "Answers in Genesis" types of 'sources', because now you are just spouting theological assertions that are based on, well, theological beliefs, you know, made-up-stuff(tm).

I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

BitChick, if you are a bad person and you commit harm against other people, actual people not imaginary deities, then taking responsibility for your dysfunctional behaviour and addressing it, is important. 'Sin', however, is simply defined by human beings as an act which an omnipotent deity disapproves of, to various degrees. It isn't a real thing, it is a made-up 'crime against god'.

If you do not believe that mythical deities are real, yet you live your life as a decent human being, flawed as we all are to differing degrees, but the choices you make are generally not intended to harm anyone and you spend your life basically being as fair and reasonable to all as you can, why would your God condemn such a person for not believing when intellectual honesty demonstrates that the theist assertion cannot be maintained as a belief without losing ones intellectual integrity.

Why would a God require the loss of intellectual integrity in order to maintain, instead, theist 'faith'?

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul. 

Soul? Pics or it didn't happen.

Seriously, there is as much proof to support the existence of a 'soul' as there is an omnipotent deity.

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

Proof?

Or are you inciting the 'special pleading' fallacy? In that, not only do you *know* this to be true, well, simply because you say it is, but also that your precious deity must not be held up to the same standards of enquiry and analysis as, well, all that we know actually does exist in reality.

[the joint]

The "deity" gave me free will but His Spirit helps me make the right choices all of the time.

Ok, I am starting to think I was mistaken about your willingness to consider you may be wrong, judging by your, badly misinformed, statements regarding geology, you are simply regurgitating the garbage and lies from "Answers in Genesis" types of 'sources', because now you are just spouting theological assertions that are based on, well, theological beliefs, you know, made-up-stuff(tm).

I need God to pay the price for the sinful choices I have made or the price I will pay is an eternal one.

BitChick, if you are a bad person and you commit harm against other people, actual people not imaginary deities, then taking responsibility for your dysfunctional behaviour and addressing it, is important. 'Sin', however, is simply defined by human beings as an act which an omnipotent deity disapproves of, to various degrees. It isn't a real thing, it is a made-up 'crime against god'.

If you do not believe that mythical deities are real, yet you live your life as a decent human being, flawed as we all are to differing degrees, but the choices you make are generally not intended to harm anyone and you spend your life basically being as fair and reasonable to all as you can, why would your God condemn such a person for not believing when intellectual honesty demonstrates that the theist assertion cannot be maintained as a belief without losing ones intellectual integrity.

Why would a God require the loss of intellectual integrity in order to maintain, instead, theist 'faith'?

But you have said that you believe that you have the power in yourself.  That is the risk you are willing to take with your soul. 

Soul? Pics or it didn't happen.

Seriously, there is as much proof to support the existence of a 'soul' as there is an omnipotent deity.

The flaw in your thinking is that you missed the part about, while God exists within this universe (for His own pleasure), He also exists entirely without the universe. God, neither entropy or non-entropy.

Proof?

Or are you inciting the 'special pleading' fallacy? In that, not only do you *know* this to be true, well, simply because you say it is, but also that your precious deity must not be held up to the same standards of enquiry and analysis as, well, all that we know actually does exist in reality.

Just a note that "sin" in the Lord's Prayer (i.e. the Our Father) is equated to temptation -- "...And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (i.e. temptation)."

[cryptodevil]

Just a note that "sin" in the Lord's Prayer (i.e. the Our Father) is equated to temptation -- "...And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil (i.e. temptation)."

Not quite sure of the relevance of that post.

'Sin' being temptation is still something that is a 'crime against god'.

Giving in to 'temptation' is a pretty fucking wide remit, ranging from the temptation to give a loved one a kiss on the cheek to, well, some pretty horrific things. So 'temptation' isn't really the problem here, it is what one is driven to do by it that is the 'crime against god' and, as I said, if it isn't a harmful act, then all we're worrying about is offending the poor dear's delicate sensibilities. You know how 'He' hates to think of people doing 'icky' things!

Funny, though, how God always seems to support what prejudices and hatred people carry within them. I never hear of a Fungelical Christian saying, "You know what, I disagree with God, he says I should love gay people equally, but I hate them and I think what they do is wrong", no, the Fungelical God always hates Teh Gayz and the 'icky' things they do with as much passion as the Fungelical human being does.

How queer.

[My Name Was Taken]

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

You realize you're quoting science for the justification of your answer? Science that you previously have been railing against as unreliable and incapable of giving us objective truth?

You can't have it both ways.

[BitChick]

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

You realize you're quoting science for the justification of your answer? Science that you previously have been railing against as unreliable and incapable of giving us objective truth?

You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with real science!  In fact, observable science confirms that there was intelligent design in every living thing to the smallest of atoms.  What I have a problem with is what is masquerading as science today, theories of how the earth supposedly came to be and now being taught as fact.  That is a huge problem.  

[My Name Was Taken]

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

You realize you're quoting science for the justification of your answer? Science that you previously have been railing against as unreliable and incapable of giving us objective truth?

You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with science!  In fact, observable science confirms that there was intelligent design in every living thing to the smallest of atoms.  What I have a problem with is what is masquerading as science today, theories of how the earth supposedly came to be and now being taught as fact.  That is a huge problem.  

Observable science does not confirm anything re: intelligent design. Confirm means proves. Your concluding so does not make it an objective fact. Also, you seem to fall into the same problem most Christians do. Theory doesn't mean "idea" or "hypothesis" like in common parlance and how you're taking it to mean. A scientific theory is tested and confirmed, meaning everything we can objectively know about the issue proves true and there is no objective or scientific evidence to give any indication otherwise.

[nsimmons]

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

You realize you're quoting science for the justification of your answer? Science that you previously have been railing against as unreliable and incapable of giving us objective truth?

You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with science!  In fact, observable science confirms that there was intelligent design in every living thing to the smallest of atoms.  What I have a problem with is what is masquerading as science today, theories of how the earth supposedly came to be and now being taught as fact.  That is a huge problem.  

YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE!

How can a person who is as ignorant as you are on a subject, claim to understand it enough to form an opinion.

What are your thoughts about the born interpretation of quantum mechanics? Do you think k-space is a suitable model for quantum energy states in Silicon semiconductors, considering the asymmetrical band formations?

Or really simple, since you claim formation of planetary bodies is made up nonsense...

Prove that kepler's laws are a consequence of conservation of angular momentum or how to resolve the asymptotic nature of the inverse square law using the dirac delta.

You surely are able to equally discuss all topics you are uninformed about.

You see, you are so ignorant, you don't even know how ignorant you are. You, quite literally, have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes.

[BitChick]

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

You realize you're quoting science for the justification of your answer? Science that you previously have been railing against as unreliable and incapable of giving us objective truth?

You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with science!  In fact, observable science confirms that there was intelligent design in every living thing to the smallest of atoms.  What I have a problem with is what is masquerading as science today, theories of how the earth supposedly came to be and now being taught as fact.  That is a huge problem.  

Observable science does not confirm anything re: intelligent design. Confirms means proves. Your concluding so does not make it an objective fact. Also, you seem to fall into the same problem most Christians do. Theory doesn't mean "idea" or "hypothesis" like in common parlance and how you're taking it to mean. A scientific theory is tested and confirmed, meaning everything we can objectively know about the issue proves true and there is no objective or scientific evidence to give any indication otherwise.

Fine.  Show me how the scientific theory of evolution has been tested and confirmed then?  Where is the fossil record of all the changes that supposedly have taken place for man to evolve?  How about just one example of a change from one kind to another?  I do not need hundreds or even thousands.  I am just asking for one example?  There is no fossil record showing these changes and there would have to be millions of them if evolution was true but there isn't even one.  

And I still don't understand how you can say that observable science does not confirm intelligent design.  Even the smallest of atoms is so complex that it had to be designed intelligently.  Intelligence comes from somewhere.  Take a computer for example.  The hardware itself is completely useless without software.  The software is what tells the computer what to do and even the slightest bug keeps the software from fully functioning.  The same thing can be applied to the smallest of atoms and to life. And if we look at the cellular structure in our bodies each cell is a small engineering marvel, so complex that we still cannot fully understand how it works.  If we, as intelligent as we supposedly are, cannot completely understand the cell that should obviously mean that someone more intelligent designed the human body.  It seems obvious.  Also, if a small "bug" is introduced into our DNA we get mutations.  Mutations always remove information, and never add to the information hence there is no "good" mutations (sometimes they can be beneficial depending on the circumstance) but nevertheless, if evolution was true we would see mutations as all being great and improvements but that is not that case.  Order does not come from chaos.

[nsimmons]

[nsimmons]

[BitChick]

Shouldn't we find a global layer of mineral deposits correspondent to flooding?

Yes.  And we do.

On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

You realize you're quoting science for the justification of your answer? Science that you previously have been railing against as unreliable and incapable of giving us objective truth?

You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with science!  In fact, observable science confirms that there was intelligent design in every living thing to the smallest of atoms.  What I have a problem with is what is masquerading as science today, theories of how the earth supposedly came to be and now being taught as fact.  That is a huge problem.  

YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE!

How can a person who is as ignorant as you are on a subject, claim to understand it enough to form an opinion.

What are your thoughts about the born interpretation of quantum mechanics? Do you think k-space is a suitable model for quantum energy states in Silicon semiconductors, considering the asymmetrical band formations?

Or really simple, since you claim formation of planetary bodies is made up nonsense...

Prove that kepler's laws are a consequence of conservation of angular momentum or how to resolve the asymptotic nature of the inverse square law using the dirac delta.

You surely are able to equally discuss all topics you are uninformed about.

You see, you are so ignorant, you don't even know how ignorant you are. You, quite literally, have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I have never claimed to know it all. I am fully aware that there are plenty of people with higher IQ's and a greater understanding of science, quantum mechanics, physics and so on.

But thankfully God has promised that he would use the foolish things to confound the "wise."  

The intelligence of man is not enough to pay the price needed to enter heaven.  I trust God more than man.  You can trust in "science" and man's intelligence and your own intelligence.  You certainly have that choice.  But all I am saying is that there will be consequences for that choice.

I have had many debates with people over these things.  It seems like there is a common thinking that if someone doesn't believe in heaven or hell then they won't be accountable for the choices they make.  They think that if they don't believe in it, then it doesn't exist.  But if heaven and hell exists then does our belief or disbelief change that fact?

Here is an example.  Let's say that there were people on a very tall and high plateau and all around the plateau was a giant cliff.  If anyone walked off the cliff they would certainly die.  Most people were wearing blindfolds but some of us chose to take off the blindfold and we saw the cliff so we started to warn those around us that that they really needed to take off their blindfolds and look and see it for themselves!  We begged them to take the cliff seriously but they were certain that there was no cliff there and that we were just imagining it.  In fact, they said that we were the crazy ones for even saying that there was one there at all.  So one by one the people would walk towards the edge and fall to their death.  Would just believing it is not there cause them not to walk over the edge?