Kevinb

The 1st sentence sounds like we've no evidence. If we can't see God doing something how can we be rationally justified to say he does.

Our environment is precious.. It's where we live. An atheist friend and I went to the beach today to pick up plastic. Big thing in the news here how we're polluting our oceans. Caught the news today on the British made satellite that's going to start mopping up our space debris. Not sure who Steven is... maybe pray for him☺

Well i don't see how God will do anything. This is a calculation based on the laws of physics and speed and trajectory. Didn't the chinese do this before and let a satellite/craft break up in orbit? Now we've debris spread about our planet in high orbit. Even a fleck of paint doin 20k ish mph will cause damage up there. We're polluting our planet... now our orbit putting other craft at risk. Makes me sad... when will we learn to take care of the environment we inhabit

Untrue. It's very accurate... only good for 50k ish years though. Carbon dating encounters problems in circumstances like mussels ingesting "old" carbon 14 that's decayed and locked into limestone for example. This then manifests in the result of said creature. This is very rare and well very understood in the radiometric dating. However YEC use these results to say yep... carbon 14 dating is nonsense... unreliable. It's either ignorant or dishonest.

carbon dating is only good for 50k ish years and deals with half lives of carbon 14. There are dozens of radiometric dating techniques independent of each other that go into the millions and billions of years. They can be tested against each other in overlap and even give a margin of error. There are several non radiometric dating techniques also. As to those who think radiometric isotopes vary in decay rates... this is patently ridiculous... please demonstrate this and falsify our understanding and win a noble prize. Let's not forget this is based upon those who 1st presuppose the age being accurate by adding up the ages of people living to 100s of years old in a particular religious book....erm...

But the Bible is clear there were no civilizations before Adam. Okay and indeed the bible may indicate this hmbld. So how do you prove the bible claim? Or are you happy to go with the bible claims are true coz they're in the bible? Kinda circular don't you think. The quran claims are true coz they're in the quran. This applies to all religious texts surely. What needs to be demonstrated is any theistic claims are true in reality. In this case Adam... so what's the evidence for Adam to corroborate the bible claim?

Interesting. My position is we can choose what to do with our lives.. to a reasonable degree. What we believe in a sense of whats true about reality ie is there a god... then which God or are there no gods. This isn't a choice...i don't choose to not believe in any of a thousand gods. We don't all have our own truths on reality. We should be compelled to believe and follow the evidence. If we care about what's actually true then demonstrable levels of evidence must dictate our beliefs. Else it's picking what we like and want... what our particular local religion just so happens to be.. what religion we're grown up believing by our parents or indoctrinated into. The only default should be to not accept any claims until there's evidential warrant. Evidence should form beliefs not beliefs form our evidence.

I'd want the things you outlined also. As a non believer I'd disagree with the only thing that makes life worth living is we'd be used by god to achieve this. We... society need to pull together... influence our governments to make the world a better place. I see no involvement by any God getting us there . Unless you've some evidence this has ever happened?

1st sentences... correct because there's no evidence or reason to take it into account. Presupposing this or accepting supernatural claims have added nothing in 500 years of science. Where has the supernatural added to our understanding of the universe above and beyond the testing of the natural?

That may very well be true, but there is plenty of evidence from secular writers to accept that Jesus was a historical figure. You and I agree that majority opinion among experts is meaningful and it is true that most historians accept it. Claims that go beyond Jesus as historical figure are debated with more fervor, and there probably are threads already discussing them. I’ll see what I can find. The majority "experts" are Christians.. they've already accepted the proposition and base work on other Christians who've already accepted it. An issue for me is there are religions pre Christian that have sons of god...saviour gods..resurrections after 3 days even. Osiris of Egypt...Romulus of Roman tradition who even on top of this underwent a passion. More modern notions of Christianity were taken from pre-existing Persian after they invaded Judea... the Persian Zoroastrianism stuff added Good God vs evil...heaven and hell were adopted from the persians. I'd have to buy the Jesus stuff in christiantity is true... after the analogous pre dates it. Makes it look like God based the Jesus "truth" on pre existing fables and stories of other civilisations. OR has just been adopted from other cults with a saviour swapped for another.. this has happened often...pre Christian.

Maybe start a thread for the evidence for Jesus if it starts there? Regarding fringe... most who write on this are Christians who start with the presupposition of accepting prior to writing. I know of little outside the bible to give evidence for the bible.

There is no evidence life can't come from non life. Where are the peer reviewed tests of ALL variables and conditions of the early solar system that proves it's impossible? This is so far from having been done. This is the burden of proof you have when say this. Else it's an appeal to our ignorance. It's also a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance to say when we don't know how thus far ergo God. Some of the building blocks and even some complicated chemistry has been discovered naturally... even in asteroids that have fallen to earth. We know prior to this stars make atoms as well. Let's not forget in 400 years of science so far we've only discovered natural laws without the requirement for any supernatural tinkering. So God involvement is now shifted back here? God of the gaps? Look at everything that was attributed to gods pre science... it just appeals to our ignorance unless you can prove God did it and one God over a 1000 others did it? Besides in the absence of evidence and causality of any problem or question the answer rationally is don't know.... not don't know therefore this... this or any other this must be demonstrated to avoid fallacious arguements.

What religion and God or gods couldn't we believe on faith? Faith is the justification all theists give to accept their view. How is faith a reliable path to truth when it gets people to any of 1000 gods and religions. This is what happens when humanity doesn't have any good evidence of god or gods. All theists in the course of our history have believed their religious view to be correct... as an non believer it seems A God has done an awful job of announcing himself to the planet...it appears religious beliefs seem to be of local cultural notions based upon our lack of understanding of the world back then. God notions have evolved over time... now we're outside of the universe but that didn't use to be the case. Cultures have borrowed ideas off each other..tweaked and made it more personal to them. Resurrection and saviour gods... floods.. this isn't unique to christiantity and predates it.

I've no doubt some scientists are this way... thankfully we've a plethora of scientists in all fields to peer review and hold them to account.. that's how it works right. Something doesn't become true because one scientist says it is... that needs to then be validated and falisified by his or her peers. This case from a singular authority without corroberative evidence and peer review isn't reliable... that's why we need peer review. The argument from authority stuff seems to be that of religions. It doesn't make sense to me when those who readily question authority when it occurs in the scientific but don't apply the same scepticism and reason when they look at religious books.

Hi one. Been a while... hope you're well and having a good 2018 You and I agree on Darwinian evolution if I recall. How long did it take for humanity to come to understand evolution as explanation for diversity of life? We've certainly evidence of building blocks but a definitive actual answer as to how chemistry became life I'm not so sure. Some here say it's impossible... that would require knowledge and testing of all possible variables and conditions of the early solar system and maybe beyond. Clearly that's not been done. Not been done and therefore God is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The God and then a particular God needs to be demonstrated. Same as those who think aliens did it or we live in a matrix or anything else. The question itself is an immensely tough one to answer. Maybe we'll come up with a model or models of how it could happen.. maybe we'll be able to show it did happen a certain way. Say it takes 10 years or 100 years... does that not make it valid? Essentially don't know on any subject in our history remains don't know.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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☺

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?

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

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.

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.