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]

...Thus, you believe in a literal Biblical flood. This IS a positive claim. Hence, it is yours to defend. Have you done so? If so, I would like to know the evidence(s) which defend this positive claim...

Yes I claim I believe. You don't have to believe that I believe.

If your claim is that it is merely 'possible', then I would need to know exactly what you mean by 'it is possible'? Meaning, how "possible"? ...

Possible means just that it is possible, could have happened. Different thing is, how probable it was. I believe it is very probable, because world looks like after the flood it should look like.

[1213]

...Denial of science...

What do you mean by that, what have I denied? Your "scientific" beliefs?

[1213]

...Because Geology does not support a global flood, and, though there have been several extinctions, the evidence is it was because of not enough water, not too much. There is certainly no evidence of all the species of today suddenly vanishing (certainly not at the so -called 'Flood - strata') and then reappearing entire in the geological record after a world -wide flood deposit. it just isn't there. There's the problem of species location, genetic bottleneck and the whole Ark story.

Those are the reasons why the Flood claim is rejected and now the burden of proof is on you to make a counter -case. ...

None of those reasons prove it was impossible, only that people have difficulties to understand what really happened. And the story doesn't say all species vanished, because most were in the ark. Many beings died in the flood, if the story is true. And there are many things that suggest it probably happened, like marine fossils on high mountain areas, oil, gas and coal are evidence for vast amount of drowned/sunken organic material.

Also, there is no good reason to assume the flood event would have caused common global strata, because earth before flood was not necessary uniform.

[brunumb]

And there are many things that suggest it probably happened, like marine fossils on high mountain areas, oil, gas and coal are evidence for vast amount of drowned/sunken organic material.

Also, there is no good reason to assume the flood event would have caused common global strata, because earth before flood was not necessary uniform.

You asked me about science denial. There it is. All the science that disqualifies the ridiculous claims you have just made. Look it up yourself. Unfortunately for you, it's not in the Bible,

[TRANSPONDER]

...Thus, you believe in a literal Biblical flood. This IS a positive claim. Hence, it is yours to defend. Have you done so? If so, I would like to know the evidence(s) which defend this positive claim...

Yes I claim I believe. You don't have to believe that I believe.

If your claim is that it is merely 'possible', then I would need to know exactly what you mean by 'it is possible'? Meaning, how "possible"? ...

Possible means just that it is possible, could have happened. Different thing is, how probable it was. I believe it is very probable, because world looks like after the flood it should look like.

No it doesn't. All the animals should be Europe, Asia and Africa and none but a few bird -species in America and Australasia. There would be no strata that show deep -time inverting, erosion and rolling over. There would be a Flood level strata with the remains of all 'kinds'of animals in. And there would be no grand canyons showing millions of years of erosion, but a long straight channel cut by a rush of water, as the Creation -apologists argue. No the world looks like it would if there had been millions of years of erosion, with the strata levels containing the critters of that time, showing a sequence of animal (and plant) development over time, and animals diversified by the splitting up of the continents. Even creationist have to admit that is the case and try to account for it with the Pangea absurdity.

...Because Geology does not support a global flood, and, though there have been several extinctions, the evidence is it was because of not enough water, not too much. There is certainly no evidence of all the species of today suddenly vanishing (certainly not at the so -called 'Flood - strata') and then reappearing entire in the geological record after a world -wide flood deposit. it just isn't there. There's the problem of species location, genetic bottleneck and the whole Ark story.

Those are the reasons why the Flood claim is rejected and now the burden of proof is on you to make a counter -case. ...

None of those reasons prove it was impossible, only that people have difficulties to understand what really happened. And the story doesn't say all species vanished, because most were in the ark. Many beings died in the flood, if the story is true. And there are many things that suggest it probably happened, like marine fossils on high mountain areas, oil, gas and coal are evidence for vast amount of drowned/sunken organic material.

Also, there is no good reason to assume the flood event would have caused common global strata, because earth before flood was not necessary uniform.

No. This is what happens when you repeat Creationist apologetics. They don't give you the facts. The facts are that the 'marine fossils on high mountains' are fossil sea beds with sea -shells in situ and worm-borrows in the sea bed.The whole sea bed was raised up through millions of years of geological formation, not dumped on a mountain -top by a flood. We may debate whether or not the fossil fuel deposits could happen in a few thousand years or would need millions, but either hypothesis works, but the stratification of fossils, rolling over of strata and the specific animal types in different continents is part of the evidence that deep time geology and evolution is the correct mechanism.

[POI]

...Thus, you believe in a literal Biblical flood. This IS a positive claim. Hence, it is yours to defend. Have you done so? If so, I would like to know the evidence(s) which defend this positive claim...

Yes I claim I believe. You don't have to believe that I believe.

I already know you believe. And thank you for telling me I do not have to believe. Your response offers nothing, as to what I have placed forth in this debate/exchange. In your prior claim, you stated, in my addressed response from post #90: "The ones who make the claim, should prove it". "My claim is that it is possible and I think I have explained many times how it is possible."

I'm seeing you have provided some tidbits of 'evidence' to others. And I have to wonder.... Have you never received responses to those claimed 'evidence(s)' before? I bet you have. And when you have, do you just hand-wave them away, in favor of 'faith' that humans are fallible and "it must be true if the claim is in the Bible"?

If your claim is that it is merely 'possible', then I would need to know exactly what you mean by 'it is possible'? Meaning, how "possible"? ...

Possible means just that it is possible, could have happened.

This is where apologists like to muddy the waters. Meaning, they will place forth that "anything is possible, and that we could even be a brain in a vat." Not all claims are equal. Apologists, like yourself, attempt to <level the playing field>, in an attempt to get doubters to think they have just as much 'faith' in their belief(s) as the Christians are required to possess. It's a trickster move, with intent to side-step the problems in these claims placed before them. The fact of the matter is, your 'faith' and/or 'belief' in a Biblical flood 'possibly' happened equals the same 'possibility' of what I mentioned prior, about Big Foot and anus probing aliens. 'They are "possible" too' Meaning, to continue supporting the claim of a global flood is quite far fetched, and not very possible to have actually happened.

Different thing is, how probable it was.

1. Please do not try to derail the exchange. You are saying the same thing now. How <possible or probable> is it that a Biblical flood actually happened (50%, 75%, other)? Based upon our findings, I say it's very unlikely; <1% possible. How about you?

2. Also, do you think the 'flood' happened a few thousand years ago (6K-10K), or maybe much longer? Please clarify a timeline, so I know how to address your response(s).

because world looks like after the flood it should look like.

Evidence(s) please.....

[POI]

None of those reasons prove it was impossible

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?

only that people have difficulties to understand what really happened.

And there we have it.... I explained this in my last response to you. The Bible says it, so it MUST be true. Apologist quote --> "We are fallible humans and therefore we may be interpreting the 'evidence' all wrong."

Here's another thought.... If a claim is made in the Bible, which does not comport with later discovery and/or our shared reality, do not try to place the Bible claim in a 'special circumstances' arena. Reject it, just like you reject the countless other claims --- like Big Foot and/or anus probing alien claims.

there are many things that suggest it probably happened, like marine fossils on high mountain areas,

I'll start here. You do understand this claim has been explained, right? And when you received the explanation, why do you still use it as 'evidence' FOR a flood?

[TRANSPONDER]

It is clear that the 'possible'apologetic only works when one thinks Theist. "We assume the Bible is true. Then the opponent must disprove every possible explanation that could make it happen. Including a miracle if needed. This is why the burden of proof is assumed to be on atheism because the Bible - belief is assumed to be the default.That is the basis of all their thinking and is why we can never talk other than at cross purposes.

I'm not sure about the repeated debunked claim like seashells on mountain -tops.I sometimes think it is trying to force through a discredited claim by repeating it endlessly, but sometimes it seems like 'I couldn't persuade that person, let's try it on someone else' I keep waiting for a deconvert to explain how they argued, but I'm still waiting to know where they got these stock apologetics from. I suspect it's Discovery institute, which has had to drop a lot of the old apologetics (1) .I haven't seen the upright whale for a while which is sad as it was one of my favorites. I don'tknow why the whale has gone but the seashells on mountains is still heard, and the Grand Canyon,which is as easily and quickly debunked.(2)

(1)moon dust, receding moon, Thermo 2, reversed polarisation, Uniform process (Isotopic decay or fossil magnetic lines.

(2) ok, the whale.



no,no not that one...

This one.
From this fossil whale and other fossils, Mr. Ginenthal concluded:

The evidence of marine animals that has been found could only be created by immense, recent, oceanic tidal waves. If the floods across North America were caused by ice-domed lakes, they would have washed away all evidence of these whale bones and other marine materials; none of the floods would reach Mexico or the Bahamas.
Similarly, Jeff Dejong (enigma@reg.triumf.ca), on Jul 21, 1995, wrote:

Lets see, a world wide flood. Would a layer of silt which surround the earth constitute proof by any chance, or how about whales which have been discovered running perpendicular to the geological layers. Running through say 50 million years of strata! This suggest that the layers of geological time where layed down fairly quick.
And in May of 1995 Mr. D. W. Leon (dwleon@aol.com) wrote:

How do you explain whale skeletons found in a vertical position in diatomaceous earth (evolution cannot explain it, because for the diatoms to drop out of the water and engulf a whale would be a singular, rapid event of cataclysmic proportions).
Besides appearing on talk.origins, the claim that a 80 ft-long whale was buried standing on tail has appeared within the creationist literature. Videos and pamphlets of the Creation Science Evangelism out of Pensacola, Florida frequently claim that the existence of this same fossil whale from a diatomaceous earth quarry near Lompoc, California is clear proof of the Noachian Flood. This same story has also appeared in creationist journals, e.g. Creation Ex Nihilo (Anonymous 1988). The most detailed account about this vertically buried 80-ft long whale is published in a secular collection of geological mysteries collected in Corliss (1980). Because of the continuing reappearance of this story, however infrequent, a FAQ was prepared on the strange case of the whale that was alleged to have been buried standing on its tail.

It is in only Corliss (1980) and Mr. Ginenthal's article that the source of this story is cited. The article that they both cite is Russel (1976). It stated that a fossil baleen whale was found in a vertical position, "standing on end in the quarry...the fossil may be close to 80 ft long...." in the GREFCO diatomite quarries near Lompoc, California. Almost immediately, creationists, e.g. Heimick (1977) and Olney (1977), jumped at this news brief and wrote letters-to-the-editor in claiming that only a Biblical Flood could explain this fossil. From similarities in later accounts published by Creation Ex Nihilo, Creation Science Evangelism, and as talk.origins posts, it is quite apparent they all are talking about this same whale described by Russel (1976) and commented on by Heimick (1977) and Olney (1977).

The Real Story: Just the Facts

Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

Essentially the Creationist apologist said that the fossil whale was upright in the strata (only possible with a cataclysm) when in fact it was parallell with the strata all of which was tilted over geological ages until the fossil was vertical. The point being Creationists throwing apologetics at us without checking.

I suggests they check the apologetics they should not use.
Contents
1 Should Not Be Used
1.1 Darwin recanted on his deathbed
1.2 Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon
1.3 NASA computers found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement
1.4 Woolly mammoths were snap frozen during the Flood catastrophe
1.5 The Castenedolo and Calaveras human remains in “old” strata invalidate the geologic column
1.6 Dubois renounced Java man as a “missing link” and claimed it was just a giant gibbon
1.7 The Japanese trawler Zuiyo-maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand
1.8 The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall
1.9 If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
1.10 Women have one more rib than men
1.11 Archaeopteryx is a fraud
1.12 There are no beneficial mutations
1.13 No new species have been produced
1.14 Earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood
1.15 Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed
1.16 Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species
1.17 Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents
1.18 The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology
1.19 There are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more
1.20 Jesus cannot have inherited genetic material from Mary, otherwise He would have inherited original sin
1.21 The phrase "science falsely so called" in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution
1.22 Geocentrism (taking Earth as an absolute reference frame) is taught by Scripture and Heliocentrism is anti-Scriptural
1.23 Ron Wyatt has found Noah’s Ark
1.24 Ron Wyatt has found much archaeological proof of the Bible
1.25 Many of Carl Baugh’s creation 'evidences'
1.26 Missing solar neutrinos prove that the sun shines by gravitational collapse, and is proof of a young sun
1.27 Einstein held unswervingly, against enormous peer pressure, to belief in a Creator
2 Doubtful and Inadvisable
2.1 Canopy theory
2.2 There was no rain before the Flood
2.3 Natural selection as tautology
2.4 Evolution is just a theory
2.5 There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible
2.6 The speed of light has decreased over time
2.7 There are no transitional forms
2.8 Gold chains have been found in coal
2.9 Plate tectonics is fallacious
2.10 Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution
2.11 The Gospel is in the stars
(credit Creationism encyclopaedia)

[brunumb]

...Thus, you believe in a literal Biblical flood. This IS a positive claim. Hence, it is yours to defend. Have you done so? If so, I would like to know the evidence(s) which defend this positive claim...

Yes I claim I believe. You don't have to believe that I believe.

If your claim is that it is merely 'possible', then I would need to know exactly what you mean by 'it is possible'? Meaning, how "possible"? ...

Possible means just that it is possible, could have happened. Different thing is, how probable it was. I believe it is very probable, because world looks like after the flood it should look like.

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

[1213]

...
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.