Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Excellent


About Kevinb

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

844 profile views
  1. I initially read into it starting to talk about coronal mass ejections from the sun but the rest doesn't follow or make sense. This is the problem when things are so non specific vague. I'm kinda with you on passage 1. The trouble is we're reading what we know back into this... it's kinda leading the evidence.
  2. No Problem, Please provide a Time Machine...? Ah okay.. so nothing besides biblical assertion... shame. 1. This is Incoherent, could you rephrase...? The bible indicates a day and night days before the sun. Huh?? You're somewhat confused... My Point 3: "Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...?" <--- This is a request for SUPPORT. Is in response to "YOUR" Claim: "Science doesn't support Adam and eve". <--- This is a CLAIM. "YOU" made the Claim. So How in the World can I be Shifting the Burden of Proof, Pray Tell...? Not going to relive evolution again. Clearly science doesn't support Adam and eve. If you feel it does please give evidence... if it doesn't on what do I accept Adam and eve? Re the flight and such... we've done this many times too... such that as the earth curvature "falls" so does the plane based on atmospheric pressure to maintain height. The rest of the copy and paste and the container stuff I agree on the theory however the issues are only there is you have presupposed flat earth. Done all this stuff before. Just for others to see the knot people get in vs reality when they've already accepted the biblical before assessing evidence. Therefore you've got to not accept evidence for black holes... General relativity and so forth. Spherical planets.. stars and so on coz you've bought into the bibles flat earth. Red Herring Fallacy (Diversion) x7. You have the prevailing "Narrative"; Ergo...You Scientifically Validate EACH: a. What Phenomenon was Observed...? b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...? c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...? d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified. These are legitimate problems for flat earth and dome. You've just dodged. snarkily calling me professor doesn't help matters. Back on block before things deteriorate...i don't want to be the reason for you to get thrown from another thread.
  3. Of course ancient people would have observed asteroids and meteors same as we do now. Minus the angel bit... we don't attribute that now. How do you interpret the 2nd paragraph ?
  4. So they appeared poof pre sun... please demonstrate? I referred to the bible creation myth saying day and night day 1 but the sun day 4...erm.. Scientific understanding supports evolution. Your point 3 is shifting the burden of proof for your Adam and eve claim. Please demonstrate evidence for the Adam and eve claim. Agreed. However to have this problem ... as you do you must presuppose flat earth 1st. Please explain what drives the sun and moon in the magic dome.? How does a compass work? What are the northern lights in the magic dome model? Stars are angels too in your model if memory serves? Angel telescope pic if you please? How far are the sun and moon? Earth is on columns... what are columns on? What causes the sun to produce light? The moon produces light also right... by what means... why does it have a shadow and why doesn't the moon show its own light in the dark areas? The other planets are flat too yet we see them as spheres and their moon's travel past... disappear behind and reappear the other side? Where do asteroids come from and suspended how... they must be inside the dome already? Why is there no evidence of firing something into a dome to easily prove it? If you can demonstrate evidence for these claims we can progress to page 2s problems with your hypothesis. Anyways as it's Christmas thought I'd try again and unblock for a spell... you didn't answer this stuff last time. Hope you're well and had a good Christmas.
  5. Yet scientific understanding contradicts the biblical 6 day creation story let alone it's in the wrong order . Ie day and night several days before the sun. Science doesn't support Adam and eve... this is biblical presupposition. On Enoch... he won't like black holes discussed here because they came about by Einsteinian physics pre observations...as did hawking radiation. This is because of his biblical presuppositional stance of flat earth... as described in the bible... firmament magic dome and such. I must say I agree the bible indicates this but being a non believer... it's not supported by evidence... along with the rest of the claims. Pre supposing prior and believing before investigation and a shred of evidence is the entire problem.
  6. The sheer number out there sure is worrying. We've found the biggies but the numbers are huge... even small ones would be devastating. This bombardment is how planets form. Remember Schumacher Levi 9 in the 90s? Thankfully for us...jupiter has hoovered up more than its share. Just says the solar system is not the finished article. We had many hit is in the past though..our surface is more dynamic than the moon... check the hits there. Don't know why we need to add God influencing or allowing... how to show causation... we have nothing beyond physical laws at work. If we're due a big impact let us hope it's far enough in our future we can do something to stop it hitting by then. On the shape...asteroid shape isn't unduely influenced by gravity... in that they aren't big like planets so wouldn't need to be spherical. Lots don't look like anything.. it's seeing shapes in clouds. Maybe this will miss and in 100 years one that looks like a teddy bear will hit☺
  7. They amount to the same thing...religious belief without proof. Even if you want to stick with the later... it's hope without what's not seen.... or observations . Do you honestly think that's a good pathway to truth.... what I hope for and have zero observations and proof of? How is that different from dillusion. Plus I could hope for and have no observations of intelligent life at the core of mars. That has nothing to do with what's actually true. This is an equivocation... your presupposition of supernatural prevents you from understanding. Okay.. I'll try again. If a scientist who's a religious creationist was to investigate the world and universe they find themselves in... the tools at their disposal would be an understanding of physics...experiments... equipment.. labs.. tools. There are of course people of all religions doing this science.. around the world including cooperatively at cern. A non believer conducts themselves in the same way. The religious person is the one adding supernatural notions based on no proof... what is hoped for and not seen and for these reasons the non believer isn't convinced. To say positions are identical is an equivocation. Or please justify how I can add supernatural. Incorrect... it is supported by the laws of physics proposed initially from Einstein and substantiated by Lemaitre in the 20s ..friedmann and others. The physics predicted a cmb years before it was found. Please give the alternate not just natural laws God did it hypothesis and factors we can check and then your God as opposed to that of the rest humanity has proposed? We can only investigate the naturalistic as explained.. it's never helped progress understanding dropping in any particular supernatural claims has it if so where? The default is to examine and explain what we can see not to add what isn't seen and hoped for. Equivocation again...i say it often as you cite it. Laws of physics and evidence drive an atheistic confidence in our models of reality. As per big bang discussed. If we find other evidence to tweak models that becomes our new best. So the biblical is based upon invesigation? How old is the universe as per the bible? Evidence for Adam and eve. The assertions from authority have what evidence? The claims are pre any investigation not warranted by evidence and post added to. Erm... big bang or evolution... you've not denied that? What's the God did it alternative or addition? By what info can I factor that in? Please outline the methodologies where I can investigate the supernatural? In terms of the forced to come to conclusions part in the absence of evidence. Addressing big bang initiation... we've examples coming from nothing... multiverse stuff but we're not there yet. I'm happy to say I don't know. You would assert God did it... how... based on what info?
  8. I do understand faith... so far yes appealing to faith by those of any religion hasn't swayed me... same as all other religions and their gods humanity has ever put forward haven't appealed to you to follow...i just add yours to the same faith pot explanation that we both don't align ourselves to
  9. I'm not dictating what you post... everyone posts what they like personal attacks aside. You gave me what you considered as evidence and I replied with how I view that. This is the science and faith forum. However it's not as black and white as that it's also how people reason and evaluate and we have different opinions. Yes I don't take religious faith claims as good evidence. If people had evidence for claims then they need not appeal to faith. Besides faith is what's gotten people to 100s of gods...ergo i don't see it as a reliable way to truth.
  10. Yep I see that IS your evidence. However... this is the claim... the claim then has to be supported... ie God did it as per john1:3. Egyptians would say in answer to looking at the sun moving across the sky... evidence for their gods would be their scripture Ra and his chariot and thousands of other examples from all religions. Again this isn't evidence...its a claim... again unsupported by evidence. Thinking this way is a great way to be wrong. I could just say magic pixies did it unless i can demonstrate that it's just faith without any evidence to corroberate in reality. This part of worthy invites seekers and non believers to engage with Christians. Btw scientific proof well maybe... any that's compelling would do.
  11. I'm not going to drown you in a tsunami of explanations or statements, Kevin. I will just tell you that YOU, ME, and everything else that exists make up the evidence you are looking for. John 1:3 KJV All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made Hi glory. As someone who doesn't thus far buy into any religious beliefs I hope you see I don't see the bible as proof of the bible claims..it's kinda circular. An Indian could have given me a verse from their book. Muslim from Quran and so on. What needs to be done is to link the religious claims to reality...ie God did it and my God especially.. here's the causational evidence. What you have given me is just your faith and faith in the absence of evidence gets me to every religion and scripture.
  12. Well I'll always consider any evidence you have God did it? Everything we've discovered thus far operates under laws of physics in the case I cited for supernova... this isn't random. I'm amazed by supernova and black holes... how do you get to add God did it. Let's not forget Einstein via physics and mathematics showed black holes must exist 70 years before observation. This doesn't disprove God or gods as it's unfalsifiable but it takes away the need to believe in God causality. I don't see how to add God did it... unless you've evidence I've not heard?
  13. Thanks for the link... the universe is truly amazing. Stars can also form black holes over certain masses based upon laws of physics. . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit How are we justified throwing God in? How can I corroberate adding that claim?
  14. You assert this equivocation fallacy often. We could say we've same observations.. investigation has never shown supernatural. however theists then add an additional claim ie a god that atheists see no warrant based on no good evidence to add... unless you have some? The default is to not believe this claim without evidential warrant. So basically a theist would test and investigate the natural world the same as an atheist ...a theist then adds the additional claim ie God or gods... the atheist then rejects this... no good evidence... can't investigate the supernatural.. assertions that can't be falisified and so on
  15. Hi tristen. Hope you're well. I agree on the evidence definition. Although you need to demonstrate the link from the observational evidence to God did it then your version of god did it...ie Christianity over other religions and their gods and the scientific. This involves a causational link that can be investigatible and falisifiable. So you could interpret to anything .... any God... any religiosity or can you demonstrate causation...null hypothesis ? Faith as defined is.. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - wiki Or Hebrews 11.1 faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see - bible. This isn't not how scientific understanding works although theists attempt to equivocate they are comparable explanations. So the scientific.. explanation of universal to planetary origins.. ie big bang was lead by Einsteinian physics initially...(even Einstein didn't like where the physics lead)... that's been tested... attempted to be falisified..corroberated by cmb and red shift and more. What can I observe to substantiate the God hypothesis and the Christian genesis version thereafter plus I'd need to disprove the scientific of course. Not observed directly but can be investigated... similar to investigation of a crime scene. Dumping supernatural claims into the past.. where has that ever helped or progressed understanding superseding naturalistic? Confidence is predicted then falisifiable by facts ie observable evidence. How do I get to your or any other religious claims other than just assertion? Indeed as bonky said religions have already started with all answers before investigation. Believes forming evidence instead of evidence forming beliefs. Plus unlike the laws of physics that initiated big bang theory. Any unfalsifiable God did it claim...we could just assert magic pixies did it with the same lack of causational evidence. This is again... how religious faith can get us to 1000s of gods. When I joined...i did have God notions of not an explanation of initiating a big bang therefore God.. chatting to others realised I've no good reason and worse it's a fallacy to get to a God this way...i thank Enoch for this... he helped me lots. Why are you forced... we aren't warranted in asserting conclusions in the absence of a justifiable warrant. The time to believe something is when we've evidence. Again so if you say your God did anything... what can I accept that on and reject other religions explanations? Its incorrect if your explanation is just assert God did it. If you really care about the truth the answer is don't know. This is interesting and highlights your presupposition and bias. There is no forced.. we're not at a pinnacle. Look what we've learned in 400 years. Here's to the next 400🍻 Don't know is a valid answer until then. The secularists atheist models were lead there by demonstrable levels of evidence. Not an assertion from authority. The evidence discovered contradicts the biblical presupposition that's prior to looking for evidence. No...we shouldn't start with faith in a religious and then your particular religions context. I like how you admit it though. Your model I could start with a faith of another religion then fit evidence to it... or just deny the evidence coz it doesn't support my particular religious presupposition. This is leading the evidence rather than being lead by it again. Athiests don't add another claim ie some God or gods did it... science dumped this a long time ago...its not helped our understanding and there is no evidence so not justified to add. This is an equivocation again. Religious people have decided answers prior to evidence... as an atheists not believing in an extra God claim I'll be lead by the evidence... also I'd believe in a god when I have evidence. Another thread I was told... there is evidence just look around... well that's observation but you'd need to prove or have evidence a god did anything... making a claim gives a burden of proof. Okay how do we demonstrate anything supernatural. Plus theists deny knowledge and evidence because of this bpresupposing supernatural. How is supernatural logical minus any evidence whatsoever of it.