Is there proof or not?

[boatsnguitars]

Help me understand this.

Christians will claim they have ample evidence of the Holy Spirit, or God based on the feelings they get, or what they call evidence., or, "He'll prove himself to you when you believe.".

But, they also say God can't be tested for, and you can't prove God's existence because it would take away Free Will, or "God doesn't work that way".

These two ideas - that are probably mentioned a million times on this forum - are contradictory.

Can a Christian please explain, for once and for all, the rules on how God can be detected, but not proven, but proven and not detected, or whatever.

It makes no sense to me, but I'm an idiot, so maybe I don't get the simple logic.

[1213]

Is this really your position? If this is your position, then (Big Foot) and (anus probing aliens) are also 'possible'. But you quickly start to see how absurd your position becomes.... How 'possible' is the claim?

That something may feel absurd, doesn't make it impossible.

And when you received the explanation, why do you still use it as 'evidence' FOR a flood?

Making an explanation is not enough on itself. People can make all kind of explanations, it does not mean they are necessary also right. I reject explanations that are not reasonable.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
How do you know what the world should look like after the biblical flood?

By deducting from how the flood happened.

1. In the beginning there was only one continent.
2. The flood came when the original continent was broken and the water below it was released.
3. Dry land was covered with dust. Water carried it and formed vast sediment formations.
4. Many animals were buried into those sediments.
5. Modern continents were formed from the parts of the collapsed original continent.
6. Vast amount of organic material was buried.

Results that we should be able to see from all that are:
1. Vast oil, coal and gas fields.
2. Modern continents.
3. Vast sediment formations, like for example Grand Canyon.
4. Marine fossils also on high mountain areas.
5. I think also that most if not all ancient cultures have a story about great flood is evidence for such event.

You've already been told that marine fossils on mountains are disproof of a flood, not proof of it. You've already been told the Grand canyon shows long time erosion, not a quick formation. You've been told that the flood would be a layer of one sediment with all kinds of animals and humans, too jumbled together. We get strata with evolving types in just as evolution over millions of years would cause. I'm sure you have been told this before.

The rest is just what geology has shown but adapted by Creationist apologetics as a speeded - up one - off event to fit geology. Pangaea - splitting up of the continents - only works if the Flood has not in fact flooded everything. The continents all had to be there to split up. And how would they get where they are without tectonic plate movement over millions of years. you think they floated like rafts, with marsupials on one and placentals on the other? Don't you see this is desperately trying to make Bible claims fit the science?

Thing is, it's a hoot because even if you are right, it only validates Judaism or maybe Islam as they do creationist Flood and Ark, too. You still have to prove Christianity.

[TRANSPONDER]

Is this really your position? If this is your position, then (Big Foot) and (anus probing aliens) are also 'possible'. But you quickly start to see how absurd your position becomes.... How 'possible' is the claim?

That something may feel absurd, doesn't make it impossible.

And when you received the explanation, why do you still use it as 'evidence' FOR a flood?

Making an explanation is not enough on itself. People can make all kind of explanations, it does not mean they are necessary also right. I reject explanations that are not reasonable.

So do we. And the Biblical Flood is not reasonable. The super continent has broken up and come together several times.The global ocean was never total. The continents were always attached to the mantle which moves (teconic plate movement, causes continent break up, rifts,mountains, tilted strata, volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis) the land masses about. This is more 'reasonable' (in accordance with the data) than any Flood scenario.

Each strata has its' own type of meat and veg. From simple water - critters up through the lizard types to mammals and eventually humans. We do not get elephants in the Cambrian strata nor Plesiosaurs in the Miocene levels, even though they could swim. The deep time model is more reasonable (fits the evidence) than any of those daft 'some creatures could run away faster' excuses the Creationists make.
Come on pal, you know it makes no sense and just blurting out Creationist excuses is Faith -based denial. If you must opt for that, at least say so and don't try to pretend it reasonably fits the evidence.

[POI]

Is this really your position? If this is your position, then (Big Foot) and (anus probing aliens) are also 'possible'. But you quickly start to see how absurd your position becomes.... How 'possible' is the claim?

That something may feel absurd, doesn't make it impossible.

And when you received the explanation, why do you still use it as 'evidence' FOR a flood?

Making an explanation is not enough on itself. People can make all kind of explanations, it does not mean they are necessary also right. I reject explanations that are not reasonable.

No. Your position is absurd. Please answer to Transponder, in posts 102 and 103, to merely demonstrate how absurd it is to retain your position.

[brunumb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #102]

Thank you for that response to 1213's post. The absurdity of it all left me too gobsmacked to be bothered to construct another time-wasted rebuttal. When one is deep in the well of belief, pseudo-science and fantasy must give the comforting illusion of reality.

[1213]

You've already been told that marine fossils on mountains are disproof of a flood, not proof of it.

Yeah, but no intelligent reason to believe that to be correct.

You've already been told the Grand canyon shows long time erosion, not a quick formation. You've been told that the flood would be a layer of one sediment with all kinds of animals and humans, too jumbled together....

That people claim so doesn't mean it is necessary so. I don't think there is anything that shows extremely slow erosion in the Grand Canyon. I don' think it could have been formed in a very long time period.

Also, there is no intelligent reason to think the flood would have caused one uniform strata.

The rest is just what geology has shown but adapted by Creationist apologetics as a speeded - up one - off event to fit geology. Pangaea - splitting up of the continents - only works if the Flood has not in fact flooded everything. The continents all had to be there to split up. And how would they get where they are without tectonic plate movement over millions of years. you think they floated like rafts, with marsupials on one and placentals on the other? Don't you see this is desperately trying to make Bible claims fit the science?

I don't believe continents have moved much. When the original continent was broken, the parts maybe have moved slightly, but mainly they went straight down.

Thing is, it's a hoot because even if you are right, it only validates Judaism or maybe Islam as they do creationist Flood and Ark, too. You still have to prove Christianity.

By what the Bible tells, Christians, disciples of Jesus, are Jews.

...The super continent has broken up and come together several times...

But there is no good reason to believe any of that.

Each strata has its' own type of meat and veg. From simple water - critters up through the lizard types to mammals and eventually humans. We do not get elephants in the Cambrian strata nor Plesiosaurs in the Miocene levels, even though they could swim. The deep time model is more reasonable (fits the evidence) than any of those daft 'some creatures could run away faster' excuses the Creationists make.
...

In case everything is buried, it is obvious that those that are easier to bury, are buried first. The order in strata is just as would be expected, if the flood really happened.

[brunumb]

In case everything is buried, it is obvious that those that are easier to bury, are buried first. The order in strata is just as would be expected, if the flood really happened.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The cataclysmic chaos of the flood scenario would gave left extreme disorder. But, there is no point suggesting that you investigate further because all we will get is science denial and the usual sound bite: "There is no intelligent reason to believe in that".

[TRANSPONDER]

You've already been told that marine fossils on mountains are disproof of a flood, not proof of it.

Yeah, but no intelligent reason to believe that to be correct.

There is if, as I said, these are entire fossil sea-floors,not marine flotsam.

You've already been told the Grand canyon shows long time erosion, not a quick formation. You've been told that the flood would be a layer of one sediment with all kinds of animals and humans, too jumbled together....

That people claim so doesn't mean it is necessary so. I don't think there is anything that shows extremely slow erosion in the Grand Canyon. I don' think it could have been formed in a very long time period.

Also, there is no intelligent reason to think the flood would have caused one uniform strata.

The meandering form of it shows a long process of gradual erosion. Being formed quickly would have cause a relatively long, straight, fissure. And it does make sense to imagine a flood washing in 'dust'as you put it and everything on it forming a single deep deposit of silt with all the various kinds of animals in it. That is not what we get. We get strata with just the animals and plants that lived at that time. Not the ones that camelater

The rest is just what geology has shown but adapted by Creationist apologetics as a speeded - up one - off event to fit geology. Pangaea - splitting up of the continents - only works if the Flood has not in fact flooded everything. The continents all had to be there to split up. And how would they get where they are without tectonic plate movement over millions of years. you think they floated like rafts, with marsupials on one and placentals on the other? Don't you see this is desperately trying to make Bible claims fit the science?

I don't believe continents have moved much. When the original continent was broken, the parts maybe have moved slightly, but mainly they went straight down.

Straight down is what one would expect with the Hydroplate theory which I think you were arguing, but apart from tectonic plate movement being measurable going on to day and producing geological upsets such as plate shift earthquakes, Creationism itself argues the break -up of Pangaea to explain how the animals got to the various continents. If they were already where they are, how did the animals all get there?

Thing is, it's a hoot because even if you are right, it only validates Judaism or maybe Islam as they do creationist Flood and Ark, too. You still have to prove Christianity.

By what the Bible tells, Christians, disciples of Jesus, are Jews.

By what the Bible (Acts, certainly) the disciples were Observing Jews and not Christians such as we have today. That was all Paul's idea.You can see his arguing the idea out in Romans.

...The super continent has broken up and come together several times...

But there is no good reason to believe any of that.

There is geological science. You may reject that if you wish.

Each strata has its' own type of meat and veg. From simple water - critters up through the lizard types to mammals and eventually humans. We do not get elephants in the Cambrian strata nor Plesiosaurs in the Miocene levels, even though they could swim. The deep time model is more reasonable (fits the evidence) than any of those daft 'some creatures could run away faster' excuses the Creationists make.
...

In case everything is buried, it is obvious that those that are easier to bury, are buried first. The order in strata is just as would be expected, if the flood really happened.

That is a poor excuse. What would be easier to bury? Heavy and lumbering animals like elephant and Diplodocus. They'd be at the bottom strata. They are not. The ones harder to bury would be swimming creatures like for instance the Devonian period fish. They are not in the 'Flood'(Cretaceous) levels, they are in the Devonian and Silurian levels, as you'd expect if Deep time geology and stratification of the creatures of that time was correct.

Watch this or not as you like. There's plenty more once you get past the flood of online Creationist apologetics videos.

[1213]

Straight down is what one would expect with the Hydroplate theory which I think you were arguing, but apart from tectonic plate movement being measurable going on to day and producing geological upsets such as plate shift earthquakes, Creationism itself argues the break -up of Pangaea to explain how the animals got to the various continents. If they were already where they are, how did the animals all get there?

Animals got where they are, because there was dry land connecting places. Reasons for that are:
1. Flood event caused global cooling and ice age, which is why water level was relatively lower.
2. Land has sunken in many parts.

That is a poor excuse. What would be easier to bury? Heavy and lumbering animals like elephant and Diplodocus.

To bury an elephant, you need lots of stuff. To bury an insect, you need less than inch layer of stuff. If you have an inch of stuff to bury an elephant, it easily escapes from that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Straight down is what one would expect with the Hydroplate theory which I think you were arguing, but apart from tectonic plate movement being measurable going on to day and producing geological upsets such as plate shift earthquakes, Creationism itself argues the break -up of Pangaea to explain how the animals got to the various continents. If they were already where they are, how did the animals all get there?

Animals got where they are, because there was dry land connecting places. Reasons for that are:
1. Flood event caused global cooling and ice age, which is why water level was relatively lower.
2. Land has sunken in many parts.

Well of course land bridges account for global migrations - in a deep time evolutionary scenario but not the Bible. I'm going to don my Theist hat again. So there is no Pangaea and the continents are pretty much where they are now, connected by land bridges. The Eden area (Middle east) had all the animals spread out via land bridges. The various 'kinds' cat kind, dog - kind, cattle - kind, seven clean sacrificial beast - kind, dove kind and raven kind and all the other species of bird - kind plus Pakicetus that would super - evolve into whales a thousand years later (1) and around 3-6,000 B.C Noah loaded a sample of the kinds still in the Eden area onto his boat. A year or so of flood and all the other men, critters and plants were drowned. Then the Ark being opened, all the kinds were let out and began to migrate (skipping over the lack of breeding viability or anything to eat) So where are the N American monkeys? There are South American ones. Why are there no marsupials in the countries on the way to Australia but nothing but Marsupials when they got there? Why none of the Madagancar fauna on the way via Africa? Deep time evolution accounts for that, but the Flood scenario doers not.

That is a poor excuse. What would be easier to bury? Heavy and lumbering animals like elephant and Diplodocus.

To bury an elephant, you need lots of stuff. To bury an insect, you need less than inch layer of stuff. If you have an inch of stuff to bury an elephant, it easily escapes from that.

But there is enough stuff to bury a T Rex, so why not an elephant? We also have T. Rex and giant sloth but not in the same layer. They were both huge. Why in separate strata if the deep time geology and evolution matching it is not true? And of course the layers of supposed filtered - out flood strata with all the size sorted fossil in is a lot thicker than an inch. And even if it was only an inch deep, this is in enough flood water to float the Ark. It would drown an elephant even if the sediment was not deep.The fossils that we have should be mingled, not stratified.

(1) the gradual shift of Creationist Flood - scenario from evolution denial to speciation but just compressed into all species in less than a thousand years is quite remarkable.