Science Babble vs Truth

[Nimos]

Um. How could there be a "biblical God" without a Bible? Are you okay Nimos?

Of course there can, just as there could be a Vibilical God, Gibbical God or a Hubiblical God. But without any scriptures to tell us about what such God is all about, there is as much foundation for the biblical God as one of those I named above and we would know an equal amount about them, which would be nada. So just as you and me are not going to have a long discussion about the Gibbical God, neither would we have one about the biblical one without the bible.

That has not happened. Sorry. What a big fail.

No, its a prediction. Just like weather forecasters make prediction about the weather or economist try to predict the economic market. Doesn't mean that it is not a prediction before after it have come true. Predictions can turn out to be true or not true, time will tell.

Ah. So when it comes to evidence supporting scriptural truth, it's all coincidences, or conspiracies.

No, but exactly as someone writing about Harry Potter or Lord of the rings, doesn't mean that those stories or characters become anymore real. If someone claim that Harry Potter is real, simply reference other people that have written about him as well, either as school projects or whatever. Doesn't mean that it is more likely that he exist.

We know hardly anything about how the writers obtained their information, most scholars, if not all have reached the conclusion that they used the same sources. Doesn't mean that it is a conspiracy or a lie, simply that we don't know.

When it comes to your beliefs in science babble, it's all smooth sailing - no coincidences, nor conspiracies. In fact, to even suggest that, one should be hung by the neck, until dead.

There is a huge difference between science and religion in how one approach it. Science is performed on something that interest someone and that can be worked with or theorized, like multiverses, what is at the center of a blackhole, whether time travel is possible etc. Currently we don't know these things and as far as I know, we are not even close to knowing and might never know. That doesn't mean that we just accept that multiverses for instance is true, because some scientist put it forward as a theory. But most things we can test and demonstrate to see if they are true or not, and others can do it as well in order to verify it.

Religions are old and it is a fact that these people for the most part weren't exactly good at writing down things, in fact a lot of them couldn't read and even less write. Given the age of these religions, obviously the people that knew everything about them are dead, which is a shame, but it is simply what we have to work with when it comes to ancient history. It is not science fault and science in general have nothing to do with how historians or religious scholars gather or figure these things out.

So you can't compare the two, they work in completely different ways, even within science. As you might have archaeologists or geologists that can help verify these ancient sites and therefore help historians. But the methods used, such as radiocarbon dating, doesn't care whether history happened one way or another.

The moon serves as a light, in case you don't know. Thus, it is a light... in case you don't know.
Need some help. Has the words "firelight" ever passed your lips? Yes. When you look at a fire, you see a light. So too the moon.
Disagreed?

But fire emits light, the moon doesn't. It reflects it.

Everything reflects light, if it didn't everything would be black, but you don't go around and refer to your table as being a light source simply because it reflects light.

Genesis does not claim the sun was created after the earth.
However, I would not be surprised to hear a lifelong Atheist say such a thing, or one who have not taken the time to study the Bible with an opened mind.

Where did the vegetation grow according to you, are we talking another planet or heaven ?

Genesis 1:9-16
9 - And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
10 - God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 - And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.
12 - The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 - And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 - And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 - and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 - And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.

1. Can trees survive in salt water

There might be some that can, but in general most will die. Especially if they are submerged in it for 40 days. But a quick google..:

Areas in close proximity to salt water, such as beaches, have high salinity in their soil, and the vast majority of tree species cannot survive in those types of conditions. However, mangroves are the only trees that grow directly in salt water.

2. Can fish survive in both salt and "fresh" water, and can sea water fish live in "fresh" water, and visa versa?

Some fish can adapt between them, such as Salmons, but most can't do this. So had to look it up to not tell you something wrong, but those that are anadromous can do it.

Scientists use the same scientific method, and come up with different interpretations.

Yes, that is part of the scientific method, if anyone think someone's result seems strange they can test them and show where they are wrong. That is why science is so effective as it is.

I don't see why you look at it as a weakness or a flaw?

Honestly Nimos, I think I am done, because you are seeing only one side, and missing the point entirely... which I emphasized. This is too exhausting, and using up time i need to use otherwise.
One can use a document, to determine truth. That's why there are people studying ancient texts, and documents.

Im not just seeing one side, but you are making comparisons that are not valid as I explained above. Science doesn't work by someone going asking another person what they think about a given thing and then just copy the result. Neither is it based on just reading some old text and assume that it is correct.

Again, historians and people that study religion HAS to verify there things as well the best they can, because the sources are either dead or they need to be verified and it is not easy. You can't simply read an ancient text and assume that it is a correct account, because there can be many reason for why someone would write something that weren't true. Could be as propaganda to cast bad light over someone else, exactly like Goebbels did with the Jews. Have you ever seen some of the stuff they made, where they compared the Jews with rats? And this were done in an age where publication, radio and cinemas existed. So you shouldn't be angry at science, you should be angry at the historians and biblical scholars for not reaching the same conclusions as you want them to.

If you want to know more about how they do these things, I would suggest that you watch these (If you have the time) these doesn't have a religious approach, but a historical one:

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)
This is 24 lectures in the old Testament (about 45 minutes each), but they are really good in my opinion.
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) | Open Yale Courses

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
This is 26 lectures. Also very good.
Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature | Open Yale Courses

Mankind being on the earth roughly 6000 years, has nothing to do with the age of earth.

I agree, but the YEC believe that 1 day in Genesis is 1 day. That is a discussion you will have to take with them. Personally I do agree with them that Genesis is referring to one day. But ultimately it doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe any of it anyway. So its a discussion for those that believe. Which were my point about you having to be able to demonstrate that your view is correct. Not only in regards to atheists, because there are other religious people that disagree with you as well on other topics, such as whether or not a day in Genesis is actually one day or not.

Don't get me wrong. Though it is at times somewhat frustrating (I assume it could be for you also), I don't mind talking to you, but I seriously don't have the time for going in circles, and in my opinion seeing you try your best to knock the ball back over, at any cost, even when it goes into the trees, instead of on court.
Nice talking to you.
We might do it some time soon again, but for now, I really don't have that time.

I like talking to you as well, at least most of the time But I do think you mix things together that shouldn't be. Science and religion doesn't use the same methods, so again I would suggest that you watch those lectures and see how scholars work with the texts and how they understand them, I think it would remove a lot of misunderstandings.

 

[Firelight]

Except there are no evidence exist that show the Genesis and Exodus or anything “biblical” were written in the late Bronze Age, no mentions anywhere that of biblical figures, like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc.

There are no inscriptions on doors or walls of Bronze Age palaces, places of worship, homes, tombs, etc.

No inscriptions on artefacts like figurines, pottery ware, jewels, seals, etc.

No writings on stone tablets, clay tablets, metal tablets, parchment, papyri, etc.

There are nothing in cuneiform - the most popular writing in Middle East (eg Canaan and Ugarit, Hittite empire in the north, and Assyria, Babylonia and Elam in the east) - or in hieroglyphs and hieratic in Egypt. The alphabet was only invented around 11th century BCE, so not much writings exist alphabet until the 7th century BCE and later.

If these books that you claimed that are central to the Abrahamic religions, then there would be something in Bronze Age Canaan itself (for example, there is Bronze Age palatial archive in Megiddo, filled with cuneiform written on clay tablets, or its neighbors, like in Egypt, Ugarit, Babylonia, Assyria, where literacy existed. And yet, there are absolute nothing, no biblical writings or the supposed prominent biblical figures, like Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Joshua.

You don’t find evidence of Genesis and Exodus until the 6th century BCE and later.

So what you are saying about Genesis and Exodus being written “before the unfolding of nation of Israel” - is nothing more than false and unsubstantiated opinions.

No, YoursTrue, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah predated all biblical writings. Your claims are just babble.

Even the claims of kings Saul, David and Solomon, there are no evidence that they existed prior to kingdoms of Israel and Judah, hence more invented myths; there are no evidence of Saul, David and Solomon, and there are certainly no evidence of Solomon empire and fable wealth.

The books of Samuel didn’t exist in the early Iron Age, and Samuel certainly didn’t write any of the books that were named after him. Samuel, like Kings, were written after Jerusalem had fallen in 587 BCE.

There are evidence in the Old Testament, but they only verified some reigns of rulers from Judah and Israel, as being contemporaries to the Assyrian kings, all stories of miracles were invented, and certainly cannot be verified in any ways.

What are your sources for this info? Or is it all your opinion?

 

[gnostic]

What are your sources for this info? Or is it all your opinion?

There are no Hebrew sources of any books (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus) attributed to Moses, in the Late Bronze Age in Canaan (1550 - 1050 BCE), Firelight.

The oldest literary evidence of biblical literature is late 7th or early 6th century BCE, discovery of silver amulet, found in the cave Ketef Hinnom, known as the Silver Scrolls.

It contained the small passage of Numbers 6, known as the Priestly Blessing, written on silver sheets.

There are nothing older than the Silver Scrolls. It is dated along with other objects found in the cave, between 620 and 590 BCE, so might be as early as the reign of King Josiah to as late as before the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian army (c 587 BCE).

Look up “Silver Scrolls” or “Ketef Hinnom”.

It isn’t the oldest Hebrew writing, but none of the older evidence have anything to with the Bible.

Among the oldest writings is the Gezer Calendar, dated to 10th century BCE. The limestone tablet was inscribed in palaeo-Hebrew alphabet, about farming tips, of when to plant, sow and harvest crops and fruits, on particularly months. It say nothing about any kings of Israel or Judah, and there are no names of anyone.

Look up “Gezer Calendar”.

The other 10th century BCE evidence is a stone boulder - the Zayit Stone - that are mostly incoherent. The only word that can be understood is “help” or “helper”, without more words, there are no context as to what this word mean.

Unlike the Egyptians and the Assyrians sources where there are contemporary annals that recorded the rulers’ lives, you don’t find Hebrew writings until about their kings (of Judah and Israel) until the 6th century BCE, when they (Jews) were in Exile at Babylon.

Hebrew writings before 7th century BCE, are scarce.

Despite being brutal kingdom, the Bronze Age and Iron Age Assyrian record-keeping are far better than contemporary Bronze Age Canaan, and Iron Age Judah and Israel.

None of the late Bronze Age kingdoms (1550 and 1050 BCE) like Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria, ever mention anyone in the Bible, like Moses, Joshua, Saul and David.

 

[Firelight]

There are no Hebrew sources of any books (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus) attributed to Moses, in the Late Bronze Age in Canaan (1550 - 1050 BCE), Firelight.

You didn’t provide the sources for your info, so you didn’t exactly answer my question. But, I am able to conclude that it is your opinion that “Yours Truly” is wrong because of an absence of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn’t provide the sources for your info, so you didn’t exactly answer my question. But, I am able to conclude that it is your opinion that “Yours Truly” is wrong because of an absence of evidence.

That is an observation. He might have used a qualifier to make it more proper but it does put the burden of proof upon you. All you need to do is to find a Hebrew book of the Bible that is of that age to show that he is wrong.

 

[gnostic]

You didn’t provide the sources for your info, so you didn’t exactly answer my question. But, I am able to conclude that it is your opinion that “Yours Truly” is wrong because of an absence of evidence.

I shouldn't have reply to you last night. It was very late like 3.11 AM, Melbourne time when I posted.

I had no time to chase sources at the time.

As I said, the oldest biblical literary evidence is the silver amulet (Silver Scrolls) from Ketef Hinnom.

Concerning Ketef Hinnom and the Silver Scrolls:

Barkay, Gabriel; Lundberg, Marilyn J.; Vaughn, Andrew G.; Zuckerman, Bruce (2004). "The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 334 (May): 41–70. doi:10.2307/4150106. JSTOR 4150106. S2CID 163426897

Waaler, Erik (2002). "A revised date for Pentateuchal texts? Evidence from Ketef Hinnom" (PDF). Tyndale Bulletin. 53 (1): 29–55​

Gabriel Barkay was one of the archaeologists (professor from Tel Aviv University) responsible the cave discovery (Chamber 25, Cave 24, Ketef Hinnom).

The Silver Scrolls are older than the Greek Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it only a few verses from Numbers (6:24-26).

There are no text older than the Silver Scrolls.

There are no Late Bronze Age writings that exist 1550 - 1050 BCE. No stone or clay tablets or parchments. So if you are asking me to cite some sources of original biblical texts, like Genesis and Exodus, that don't exist, then you are asking for the impossible.

 

[nPeace]

Of course there can, just as there could be a Vibilical God, Gibbical God or a Hubiblical God. But without any scriptures to tell us about what such God is all about, there is as much foundation for the biblical God as one of those I named above and we would know an equal amount about them, which would be nada. So just as you and me are not going to have a long discussion about the Gibbical God, neither would we have one about the biblical one without the bible.

Read what you wrote again.
But without any scriptures to tell us about what such God is all about, there is as much foundation for the biblical God as one of those

Since there is scripture that tells us what the creator - the designer (God) is all about, and there is much evidence ... none of which - presented so far - you have been able to refute, there is indeed a foundation for the Biblical God... that is, the God, as described in the Bible.

No, its a prediction. Just like weather forecasters make prediction about the weather or economist try to predict the economic market. Doesn't mean that it is not a prediction before after it have come true. Predictions can turn out to be true or not true, time will tell.

Then why did you post it Nimos?
You know I was referring to a prediction that came true don't you? I don't think you are ignorant, so as not to know this. Did I underestimate you? Should I have made myself more clear? If so, I apologize. Give me something that came true precisely, as predicted well in advance.

No, but exactly as someone writing about Harry Potter or Lord of the rings, doesn't mean that those stories or characters become anymore real. If someone claim that Harry Potter is real, simply reference other people that have written about him as well, either as school projects or whatever. Doesn't mean that it is more likely that he exist.

We know hardly anything about how the writers obtained their information, most scholars, if not all have reached the conclusion that they used the same sources. Doesn't mean that it is a conspiracy or a lie, simply that we don't know.


There is a huge difference between science and religion in how one approach it. Science is performed on something that interest someone and that can be worked with or theorized, like multiverses, what is at the center of a blackhole, whether time travel is possible etc. Currently we don't know these things and as far as I know, we are not even close to knowing and might never know. That doesn't mean that we just accept that multiverses for instance is true, because some scientist put it forward as a theory. But most things we can test and demonstrate to see if they are true or not, and others can do it as well in order to verify it.

Religions are old and it is a fact that these people for the most part weren't exactly good at writing down things, in fact a lot of them couldn't read and even less write. Given the age of these religions, obviously the people that knew everything about them are dead, which is a shame, but it is simply what we have to work with when it comes to ancient history. It is not science fault and science in general have nothing to do with how historians or religious scholars gather or figure these things out.

So you can't compare the two, they work in completely different ways, even within science. As you might have archaeologists or geologists that can help verify these ancient sites and therefore help historians. But the methods used, such as radiocarbon dating, doesn't care whether history happened one way or another.


But fire emits light, the moon doesn't. It reflects it.

Everything reflects light, if it didn't everything would be black, but you don't go around and refer to your table as being a light source simply because it reflects light.


Where did the vegetation grow according to you, are we talking another planet or heaven ?

Genesis 1:9-16
9 - And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
10 - God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 - And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so.
12 - The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 - And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 - And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 - and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.
16 - And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.


There might be some that can, but in general most will die. Especially if they are submerged in it for 40 days. But a quick google..:

Areas in close proximity to salt water, such as beaches, have high salinity in their soil, and the vast majority of tree species cannot survive in those types of conditions. However, mangroves are the only trees that grow directly in salt water.


Some fish can adapt between them, such as Salmons, but most can't do this. So had to look it up to not tell you something wrong, but those that are anadromous can do it.


Yes, that is part of the scientific method, if anyone think someone's result seems strange they can test them and show where they are wrong. That is why science is so effective as it is.

I don't see why you look at it as a weakness or a flaw?


Im not just seeing one side, but you are making comparisons that are not valid as I explained above. Science doesn't work by someone going asking another person what they think about a given thing and then just copy the result. Neither is it based on just reading some old text and assume that it is correct.

Again, historians and people that study religion HAS to verify there things as well the best they can, because the sources are either dead or they need to be verified and it is not easy. You can't simply read an ancient text and assume that it is a correct account, because there can be many reason for why someone would write something that weren't true. Could be as propaganda to cast bad light over someone else, exactly like Goebbels did with the Jews. Have you ever seen some of the stuff they made, where they compared the Jews with rats? And this were done in an age where publication, radio and cinemas existed. So you shouldn't be angry at science, you should be angry at the historians and biblical scholars for not reaching the same conclusions as you want them to.

If you want to know more about how they do these things, I would suggest that you watch these (If you have the time) these doesn't have a religious approach, but a historical one:

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)
This is 24 lectures in the old Testament (about 45 minutes each), but they are really good in my opinion.
Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) | Open Yale Courses

Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature
This is 26 lectures. Also very good.
Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature | Open Yale Courses


I agree, but the YEC believe that 1 day in Genesis is 1 day. That is a discussion you will have to take with them. Personally I do agree with them that Genesis is referring to one day. But ultimately it doesn't matter to me, because I don't believe any of it anyway. So its a discussion for those that believe. Which were my point about you having to be able to demonstrate that your view is correct. Not only in regards to atheists, because there are other religious people that disagree with you as well on other topics, such as whether or not a day in Genesis is actually one day or not.


I like talking to you as well, at least most of the time But I do think you mix things together that shouldn't be. Science and religion doesn't use the same methods, so again I would suggest that you watch those lectures and see how scholars work with the texts and how they understand them, I think it would remove a lot of misunderstandings.

You have yet to explain where the difference lies, because I never said they use the same methods... depending on what you have in mind when you say methods. You'll have to explain, but they do use the same principle, and methods, which I explained.
You will also need to demonstrate that there is no evidence at all for the Bible being reliable, or there being no evidence of a designer.

So tell me. which seeds do you say were not in the ground, and did not grow after the flood? Some names would be helpful.
Also, name the fish that you say would have died, and not produced the species of fish we have today.

You quoted Genesis 1:9-16, which did not say the sun was created after the vegetation (on the earth). Yet you claim otherwise. Why?

It does not matter what causes light to emit from an object. The point is, they give light - serves as a light, and thus is a light.
Whether it be chemicals, or otherwise.
Wood does not reflect light. Nor paper, etc, but if they catch a fire they will surely light the darkness. At that point, they are lights, and one can see with them.

When a designer creates something to give serve as a light, we do not claim it is not a light.
The designer may use built in reflector or another means.
So why the flimsy argument, Nimos?

 

[gnostic]

About the Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar, 2 objects from the 10th century, you would find the sources here:

Tappy, Ron E.; McCarter, P. Kyle; Lundberg, Marilyn J.; Zuckerman, Bruce (2006). "An abecedary of the mid-tenth century B.C.E. from the Judaean Shephelah". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 344: 41

Chris A. Rollston (2010). Writing and Literacy in the World of Ancient Israel: Epigraphic Evidence from the Iron Age. Society of Biblical Lit. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-1-58983-107-0​

They are the oldest objects of written There are some doubts of the age of Gezer Calendar.

If you don't want do want to do all that reading, then do wiki search on Gezer Calendar, Zayit Stone, Silver Scrolls, Ketef Hinnom. because they are shorter to read, and provide the necessary sources if you want to read more, under References and Further Reading.

 

[Nimos]

Read what you wrote again.
But without any scriptures to tell us about what such God is all about, there is as much foundation for the biblical God as one of those

Since there is scripture that tells us what the creator - the designer (God) is all about, and there is much evidence ... none of which - presented so far - you have been able to refute, there is indeed a foundation for the Biblical God... that is, the God, as described in the Bible.

Yes, I know there are scriptures, which is why I wrote that in case there weren't, there wouldn't be any foundation for that God. Which was a reaction to you saying that God could exist even without them.

But simply because there are scriptures doesn't mean that God exist, that has yet to be demonstrated. I have no issue with a lot of the stuff being true in the bible, because it was written by humans after all. But one still have to demonstrate the supernatural that the scriptures talk about.

You know I was referring to a prediction that came true don't you? I don't think you are ignorant, so as not to know this. Did I underestimate you? Should I have made myself more clear? If so, I apologize. Give me something that came true precisely, as predicted well in advance.

Yes, but so does many of the weather forecasts, when they make predictions about what the weather will be for the next week. Also look at Einstein:

May 29, 1919, is the date of a solar eclipse that caused a revolution in science. The eclipse is famous for testing Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein was relatively unknown at the time. He had proposed general relativity in 1915, and scientists had been intrigued by the entirely new way of thinking about gravity – for example, the idea that mass causes space to curve – but no one had experimentally proven the theory to be correct. Then, on May 29, 1919, an expedition of English scientists – led by Sir Arthur Eddington – traveled to the island of Príncipe off the west coast of Africa to observe a total solar eclipse. If the theory were right, the light from stars should be bent by the gravity of the sun and appear displaced. An eclipse, where the moon blocks the sunlight enough for stars to be seen near the sun, was the perfect opportunity to test this.

The scientists’ measurements during the eclipse showed that, astoundingly, Einstein’s predictions were indeed correct. The locations of the now visible stars appeared displaced, due to the fact that their light had to travel to us on the curved space around the sun caused by its gravity, as described by Einstein.

You will also need to demonstrate that there is no evidence at all for the Bible being reliable, or there being no evidence of a designer.

I don't have to demonstrate that there is no designer. I never made the claim that there weren't one. You claim that God of the bible is true and is the creator. And I don't see any evidence for that being true, that is my position.

So tell me. which seeds do you say were not in the ground, and did not grow after the flood? Some names would be helpful.

The names is irrelevant as the bible doesn't say which it is specifically. So all of them which we currently know of that wouldn't be able to survive.

Also, name the fish that you say would have died, and not produced the species of fish we have today.

Again all of those that can't survive under such condition.

It does not matter what causes light to emit from an object. The point is, they give light - serves as a light, and thus is a light.

But it is still a wrong description of how things works, which there is no need for. The bible could simply have gotten the order and description correct and it wouldn't have made for a worse book. But to me, it seem to be a description of how people thought it was because they were guessing.

Wood does not reflect light. Nor paper, etc, but if they catch a fire they will surely light the darkness. At that point, they are lights, and one can see with them.

Everything reflects light, except a blackhole. Some colors of lights are absorbed and the rest is reflected, which is why we see different colors. If wood didn't reflect light it would be all black.

And since wood is not all black it must reflect light so we can see it as wood. The color white reflects light, which is also why the ice caps are important for instance, as they reflect a lot of the light from the sun, but as the ice melts for instance it creates water or lakes on the surface, which causes the color to change and therefore makes the ice caps less reflective and therefore it is bad for climate change.

So:
Black = no reflection / very little reflection
White = a lot of reflection.

The reason you think that paper doesn't reflect light is because it has a very uneven surface which scatters the light as it is reflected. You can also proof that white reflect more light than black does. Which is called albedo, which you probably have experience a lot of times, for instance a black car standing in the sun will be hotter than a white car etc. Similarly a white piece of paper will be cooler than a black piece of paper, because it reflects more light.

When a designer creates something to give serve as a light, we do not claim it is not a light.

Yes, we do, if we want to be correct or give a precise description of it.

 

[gnostic]

Since there is scripture that tells us what the creator - the designer (God) is all about, and there is much evidence ... none of which - presented so far - you have been able to refute, there is indeed a foundation for the Biblical God... that is, the God, as described in the Bible.

Sorry, but a scripture describing god, is merely making claim about what god is like, and you are believing what the scripture say.

The scripture cannot be evidence of itself. You have already decided on the conclusion that the god exist, no matter if there are no evidence to god’s existence.

And your personal belief is also not evidence of the existence of god.

What you are saying is merely circular reasoning, not evidence, and your belief is merely bias, not evidence.

Since you have no evidence to give (that support the “creator” in the scripture), you haven’t refute anyone, least of all Nimos.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I know there are scriptures, which is why I wrote that in case there weren't, there wouldn't be any foundation for that God. Which was a reaction to you saying that God could exist even without them.

Of course that's your opinion. Not mine.

But simply because there are scriptures doesn't mean that God exist, that has yet to be demonstrated. I have no issue with a lot of the stuff being true in the bible, because it was written by humans after all. But one still have to demonstrate the supernatural that the scriptures talk about.

Of course God's existence is not dependent on scripture... anymore than water's existence being dependent of humans seeing it.
One can demonstrate something, and it does not have to be accepted.

Yes, but so does many of the weather forecasts, when they make predictions about what the weather will be for the next week. Also look at Einstein:

May 29, 1919, is the date of a solar eclipse that caused a revolution in science. The eclipse is famous for testing Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Einstein was relatively unknown at the time. He had proposed general relativity in 1915, and scientists had been intrigued by the entirely new way of thinking about gravity – for example, the idea that mass causes space to curve – but no one had experimentally proven the theory to be correct. Then, on May 29, 1919, an expedition of English scientists – led by Sir Arthur Eddington – traveled to the island of Príncipe off the west coast of Africa to observe a total solar eclipse. If the theory were right, the light from stars should be bent by the gravity of the sun and appear displaced. An eclipse, where the moon blocks the sunlight enough for stars to be seen near the sun, was the perfect opportunity to test this.

The scientists’ measurements during the eclipse showed that, astoundingly, Einstein’s predictions were indeed correct. The locations of the now visible stars appeared displaced, due to the fact that their light had to travel to us on the curved space around the sun caused by its gravity, as described by Einstein.

Well in that case, we are all prophets and can tell the future, because I can predict that a guy who is having sex with a girl with a sexually transmitted disease will catch it Are you being serious? Don't answer that. I already acknowledged the waved hand, and heard the "bah".
What do you want now?

I don't have to demonstrate that there is no designer. I never made the claim that there weren't one. You claim that God of the bible is true and is the creator. And I don't see any evidence for that being true, that is my position.

If someone demonstrates something, and you think they have not, you have to demonstrate that they have not.
So yes, you do have some demonstrating to do. Hand waving is easy.

The names is irrelevant as the bible doesn't say which it is specifically. So all of them which we currently know of that wouldn't be able to survive.

The names are relevant, because your claim is that no trees survived drowning.
Trees do not have to survive drowning, to exist today, when their seeds survive drowning.
So you would either have to concede that your argument is flimsy, feeble.. in fact, useless - it falls flat. Or, start naming trees.

Again all of those that can't survive under such condition.

All of what. I have no idea what you are talking about, until you can start calling names. This is not an exercise, where we can just dismiss something, because we can say whatever.

But it is still a wrong description of how things works, which there is no need for. The bible could simply have gotten the order and description correct and it wouldn't have made for a worse book. But to me, it seem to be a description of how people thought it was because they were guessing.

Ah. Your opinion. That does not matter to me Nimos. Why would your feelings about God and the Bible matter to me. You are Atheist, Nimos. Think about it.

Everything reflects light, except a blackhole. Some colors of lights are absorbed and the rest is reflected, which is why we see different colors. If wood didn't reflect light it would be all black.

And since wood is not all black it must reflect light so we can see it as wood. The color white reflects light, which is also why the ice caps are important for instance, as they reflect a lot of the light from the sun, but as the ice melts for instance it creates water or lakes on the surface, which causes the color to change and therefore makes the ice caps less reflective and therefore it is bad for climate change.

So:
Black = no reflection / very little reflection
White = a lot of reflection.

The reason you think that paper doesn't reflect light is because it has a very uneven surface which scatters the light as it is reflected. You can also proof that white reflect more light than black does. Which is called albedo, which you probably have experience a lot of times, for instance a black car standing in the sun will be hotter than a white car etc. Similarly a white piece of paper will be cooler than a black piece of paper, because it reflects more light.

Spoiler

Yes, we do, if we want to be correct or give a precise description of it.

If we want? Okay. Thanks for your opinion. You are not the narrator, nor author of Genesis.

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, but a scripture describing god, is merely making claim about what god is like, and you are believing what the scripture say.

The scripture cannot be evidence of itself. You have already decided on the conclusion that the god exist, no matter if there are no evidence to god’s existence.

And your personal belief is also not evidence of the existence of god.

What you are saying is merely circular reasoning, not evidence, and your belief is merely bias, not evidence.

Since you have no evidence to give (that support the “creator” in the scripture), you haven’t refute anyone, least of all Nimos.

You can't even discuss the facts of Jericho, so I doubt you have much to offer about what the Bible does, or does not do.