Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Polymath257]

If a single one of the hundreds of Bible prophecies, or one of the hundreds of God's promises ever failed to come true I would immediately abandon my faith and become an Atheist.
i'm also willing to sell everything I poses and give the money to anyone who can find an error or contradiction in the bible.

There are many, but they are all 'explained away' by some sort of apologetics, either they were 'symbolic' instead of 'literal' (but literal before they became symbolic), or they are simply too vague to have any content at all or they are declared to be different events even though the Bible itself says they are the same.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but nothing in secular science is for sure, everything is constantly changing. Yesterdays theories are discarded like trash and new theories are adopted until some other novel theory is given oxygen for a while.

That is a common viewpoint, but not completely accurate. new theories have to explain *more* than the older ones. They have to be *more* accurate and predict observations better. So there is progress in our level of understanding.

You are right, NOTHING is ever proven without a doubt. But, for example, quantum mechanics is a *much* better approximation than Newtonian physics was which was *much* better than Aristotelian physics. You can't simply discard an idea that has worked: the replacement has to explain 8at least* as much as the old one.

So, yes, we are *learning*. We do not know everything. That means that sometimes we are wrong and have to reconsider our ideas. But there is also progress. The old ideas do not return once they have been found to be wrong (not in agreement with observations).

So, we will never give serious consideration to the phlogiston theory of heat again. Nor will we give serious consideration to the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Those ideas have been shown to be wrong and not even good approximations. We will no longer hold to the idea that species are static. That has also been shown to be wrong.

And, once they are shown to be wrong by observation, we don't have to go back and consider them again.

 

[Polymath257]

I only believe something if there is undeniable rock solid proof. I don't fancy lending my mind to someone who assaults it with lies, deception and fantasy

What would you accept as proof? if you are willing to say everything was put into place to appear old, then there is no way to prove or disprove that idea: it is unscientific from the start.

How do you provide 'rock solid proof' that the sun exists and is a large sphere of hydrogen and helium? I challenge you to do this.

If you give me proof of this that would satisfy you, I will show that the Earth is over a million years old to the same standard.

 

[Polymath257]

As I said, I stand ready to abandon my faith and become an Atheist as soon as someone can find ant proof that the earth is more than 6-7000 years old. we simply have no evidence to support the counter claims but we do have dinosaurs buried in mood with blood cells in them. No any honest scientist will tell you that that skeleton should have fossilised 64.999 millions year ago

Actually, not quite true. The T Rex in question did NOT have red blood cells remaining. It had evidence of iron reddening that was interpreted as the remains of red blood cells (and that interpretation is probably correct). The bones were in a remarkable state of preservation, that is true. But they were fossilized and there were NOT actual blood cells remaining.

What was seen is actually consistent with 65 million year old remains.

 

[Polymath257]

You said that evidence and proof must be examined using the scientific method. That's like asking the Mafia to investigate themselves and report their findings to the FBI and CIA

What, specifically, is wrong with the scientific method? Let's go over what it actually is, shall we?

1. Make observations, trying to find patterns.

2. Try to come up with a hypothesis to explain the observed patterns.

3. Use that hypothesis to predict a *new* observation. If possible, it should be something that competing hypotheses disagree with.

4. Do the observation in question.

5. if the answer agrees with what the hypothesis predicted, go to 3.

6. if the observation does NOT agree with the prediction, modify the hypothesis or discard it. Go to 1.

This could work even if there was a supernatural: the same process could apply.

Next, once a hypothesis has passed this test multiple times in many different scenarios, and all other hypothesis either explain less or explain less accurately, the hypothesis is elevated to being our 'best guess'. We then look for more general hypotheses that work in more cases, attempting to generalize our understanding.

When we get hypotheses that are very broad and have been extensively tested, we call them natural laws. We *still* allow that we could be wrong, but any new hypothesis has to explain more or explain the observations more accurately.

So, what is wrong with this? It admits we could be wrong. In fact, it actively LOOKS for places where we are wrong. Only after being right even in those cases, is the hypothesis considered to be valid and even then only until some new observation shows it to be wrong.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I only believe something if there is undeniable rock solid proof. I don't fancy lending my mind to someone who assaults it with lies, deception and fantasy

Yet you believe in the Christian God which doesn't have rock solid proof.

Funny.

You are then a walking hypocrite.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Cosmology, radiometric dating, geology (see #865), archaeology, astronomy, astrophysics, biology and genetics (evolution), and so on.

Just ignoring the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

None of the above methods can determine the age of the earth, with any accuracy. All of these are inventions which can't be tested for accuracy, they all rely on a theory to float and they sink very quickly if you remove their prop

 

[Audie]

None of the above methods can determine the age of the earth, with any accuracy. All of these are inventions which can't be tested for accuracy, they all rely on a theory to float and they sink very quickly if you remove their prop

A belief based on ignorance and prehudice.

 

[Audie]

Yet you believe in the Christian God which doesn't have rock solid proof.

Funny.

You are then a walking hypocrite.prejudice.
Now now, "rock solid proof"?

How about just one little scrap of evidence of
any kind?

 

[Polymath257]

God caused Himself,

So it *is* possible for something to 'cause itself'? Why could it not be the universe that is self-caused?

He is separate from His universe and His creation. Everything else is created so it's common but He is unique and not connected to anything.
He is the only One who doesn't rely on a life source to exist, but you rely on Him for your next breath and when He decides to withhold your next breath. The whole universe and every atom in it are 100% dependant in Him for their next moment of life.

Nice hypothesis. Got any evidence for this? In particular, that anything in the universe requires a supernatural to uphold it?

Everything is in the palm of His hand. He is outside of time and space and He is not subject to any force or answerable to anyone.
He is the only One who never had a beginning and He has no end. Everyone will stand before Him to be judged, they won't stand before Richard Dawkins

Nice hypothesis. Any evidence?

 

[ratiocinator]

None of the above methods can determine the age of the earth, with any accuracy. All of these are inventions which can't be tested for accuracy, they all rely on a theory to float and they sink very quickly if you remove their prop

This is simply false. We can also check the different methods against each other. To make the universe only 6,000 years old, requires that you dismiss multiple different scientific disciplines and copious amounts of solid evidence. The account in #865 is one person's experience in just one discipline, when his blind faith in a young earth creationism hit hard, solid evidence he couldn't dismiss and the alarming fact that his fellow YECs were feeding him falsehoods (deliberately or otherwise) and weren't in the least bit interested in facing uncomfortable facts.

Here's some detail on radiometric dating and how it is double checked: Radiometric Dating

 

[Polymath257]

None of the above methods can determine the age of the earth, with any accuracy. All of these are inventions which can't be tested for accuracy, they all rely on a theory to float and they sink very quickly if you remove their prop

Simply false.

If you have different methods, depending on very different physical processes that *still* give consistent results repeatedly in different contexts, it is simply perverse to deny their accuracy.

And this is precisely what happens.

I'm not sure what you consider to be the common 'prop' for all the different dating methods, but it would be fascinating to learn.

And if you bring up carbon dating, we know you are simply uneducated about radioactive dating. Just saying.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

What, specifically, is wrong with the scientific method? Let's go over what it actually is, shall we?

1. Make observations, trying to find patterns.

2. Try to come up with a hypothesis to explain the observed patterns.

3. Use that hypothesis to predict a *new* observation. If possible, it should be something that competing hypotheses disagree with.

4. Do the observation in question.

5. if the answer agrees with what the hypothesis predicted, go to 3.

6. if the observation does NOT agree with the prediction, modify the hypothesis or discard it. Go to 1.

This could work even if there was a supernatural: the same process could apply.

Next, once a hypothesis has passed this test multiple times in many different scenarios, and all other hypothesis either explain less or explain less accurately, the hypothesis is elevated to being our 'best guess'. We then look for more general hypotheses that work in more cases, attempting to generalize our understanding.

When we get hypotheses that are very broad and have been extensively tested, we call them natural laws. We *still* allow that we could be wrong, but any new hypothesis has to explain more or explain the observations more accurately.

So, what is wrong with this? It admits we could be wrong. In fact, it actively LOOKS for places where we are wrong. Only after being right even in those cases, is the hypothesis considered to be valid and even then only until some new observation shows it to be wrong.

The difference with Christian science, is there are no maybe's or hypothetical's. Everything is yes or no, fact or fiction so it's a settled and completed study. There's nothing new or mysterious about it, and nothing ever changes or needs to be corrected.
Christian science is all but lost in our day, due to it's takeover by pseudo science. Ancient science was vastly superior to today's pseudo science, today's scientists don't have a clue how the ancients used astronomy and built structures which defy physics.
Today's scientists are dumber than ever, they have been going downhill for a long time. we don't have any great scientists today

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

This is simply false. We can also check the different methods against each other. To make the universe only 6,000 years old, requires that you dismiss multiple different scientific disciplines and copious amounts of solid evidence. The account in #865 is one person's experience in just one discipline, when his blind faith in a young earth creationism hit hard, solid evidence he couldn't dismiss and the alarming fact that his fellow YECs were feeding him falsehoods (deliberately or otherwise) and weren't in the least bit interested in facing uncomfortable facts.

Here's some detail on radiometric dating and how it is double checked: Radiometric Dating

You guys love to ignore the elephant in the room. God didn't create the world using the pond scum method as scientist think. He actually created a fully formed earth, complete with sedimentary rocks which fools count the layers and apply their inerrant wisdom or (circular reasoning) to and make wild assumptions.

 

[ratiocinator]

The difference with Christian science, is there are no maybe's or hypothetical's. Everything is yes or no, fact or fiction so it's a settled and completed study. There's nothing new or mysterious about it, and nothing ever changes or needs to be corrected.

Then it simply isn't science.

Ancient science was vastly superior to today's pseudo science, today's scientists don't have a clue how the ancients used astronomy and built structures which defy physics.

Is this a joke? You're writing this on a product of modern science that 'the ancients' couldn't have dreamt of. What did structure that defy physics?

 

[Polymath257]

The difference with Christian science, is there are no maybe's or hypothetical's. Everything is yes or no, fact or fiction so it's a settled and completed study. There's nothing new or mysterious about it, and nothing ever changes or needs to be corrected.
Christian science is all but lost in our day, due to it's takeover by pseudo science. Ancient science was vastly superior to today's pseudo science, today's scientists don't have a clue how the ancients used astronomy and built structures which defy physics.
Today's scientists are dumber than ever, they have been going downhill for a long time. we don't have any great scientists today

Real science is fairly recent: it's about 400 years old.

Your claims about 'Christian science' simply show that you don't understand how to go about learning about the real world.

There simply was no such thing as 'ancient science'. There was philosophical investigation, but it was ALL speculative. And to say that Ptolemy's astronomy is better *in any way* than the modern understanding is simply ignorant.

Yes, we do know how the ancients did things: trial and error and stumbling on something that works. There was no actual science involved.

Considering that 'christian science' cannot correct its many errors, it has been left in the dust once actual, honest investigations started being done.

Remember, it was 'christian science' that claimed for centuries that heavy things fall faster than lighter things and that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Not to mention that the Biblical description is of a flat Earth, a 'firmament' above it (spread out like a tent) with water surrounding it (the deep). It had 'pillars' and a 'foundation'. None of these are even remotely accurate.

 

[Polymath257]

You guys love to ignore the elephant in the room. God didn't create the world using the pond scum method as scientist think. He actually created a fully formed earth, complete with sedimentary rocks which fools count the layers and apply their inerrant wisdom or (circular reasoning) to and make wild assumptions.

Once again, this is simply a version of last Thursdayism, also known as the Omphalos argument.

Denying the evidence in this way is simply a type of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[ratiocinator]

You guys love to ignore the elephant in the room. God didn't create the world using the pond scum method as scientist think.

Baseless assertion.

He actually created a fully formed earth, complete with sedimentary rocks which fools count the layers and apply their inerrant wisdom or (circular reasoning) to and make wild assumptions.

Firstly this makes your god a liar. Secondly, it is you who are using circular reasoning. You've decided on the answer to begin with and then make up (unfalsifiable) claims about what god did (and dismiss the actual evidence), in order to 'confirm' your initial belief. It's the epitome of circular reasoning.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

There are many, but they are all 'explained away' by some sort of apologetics, either they were 'symbolic' instead of 'literal' (but literal before they became symbolic), or they are simply too vague to have any content at all or they are declared to be different events even though the Bible itself says they are the same.

if i had a dollar for every scientist who set out to prove that the Bible has errors or inaccuracies and became Christians, I'd be rich.
There's nothing vague or wishy washy in the Bible, it all very clear once you put the pieces together

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Yet you believe in the Christian God which doesn't have rock solid proof.

Funny.

You are then a walking hypocrite.

What proof do you have that there's no rock solid proof for the Christian God? let me guess you heard someone with a PHD in front of their name make that claim and you just latched onto it to keep afloat