You used a whole bunch of words to illustrate that you have no idea how scientific knowledge or progress operates, never mind "true science." I am going to pare it down a bit, and try to make this very, very simple for you: Yes, it is possible (and even damn likely) that there is more to the universe than what is currently testable or observable. This in no way means that it is likely, probably, logical, or rational to believe that whatever unknowable untestable thing you want to believe in must exist. Let me repeat that for you with slightly different phrasing to make sure you get that: Just because some particular thing CAN or MIGHT exist does not mean it MUST exist or that it is logical to believe that it DOES exist. Capisci? And this is precisely why my example, which you correctly claim is ridiculous, is on a very level playing field with your hypothetical example -- it's equally ridiculous. What if the person who wrote those books "knew" that leprechauns were real? And he had to prove it to us today? OMG! Is there more out there than what we can currently observe/test? I'm sure there is. That all falls under the category of "unknown" and while pretty much anything COULD reside in there, it's silly to pick out one particular thing and then "believe" in it. You are asking to disprove a negative. You are asking for a logical impossibility. It does not get more ridiculous than that. It's the real-world equivalent of a syntax error in programming. In fact, it would be more prudent of me to simply repeat that for any of your further responses: "Syntax error - expected "actual argument" but found "word games." Might as well ask if the number three is male or female. That's currently untestable/unobservable, you know. But instead of looking for an answer, we'd probably all be better off if we just understood that it's a stupid question in the first place. By the way, I'm fairly confident Kaku would bitch slap you if he heard you trying to bastardize his argument in such a way.
There's nothing I can say that would make you believe and there's nothing you can say to make me not believe. I'm pretty sure we're just wasting each other's time. There's a lot of reasons to believe the Bible. As I said ... it's like no other book in the world. Unfortunately, you will probably remain clueless why it is so unique and why it has stood the test of time.
How is going against mainstream society the "easy way out"? Atheism is simply following the facts. It's not giving up! No evidence for god? No reason to believe. That is how logic works, so yes, it is the logical position, just as rejecting the belief of pink unicorns is. If you are claiming rejecting the idea of a creator or god is illogical, then I wonder exactly where you learned about logic. Interesting viewpoint. Isn't that essentially that is just "giving up" and saying "I don't know what caused everything, so I'm going to just call it 'god' "? I exist, therefor god exists? I just don't see it. If we came from the universe, then all you are doing is renaming the universe, god. If that's the case, why not just call it the universe? The funny fact of the matter here, is that you cannot even prove to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that you even EXIST. Go ahead and prove that you are real and not generated by my imagination.
That is absolutely false. You've been duped, because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there was ever a world wide flood. Obviously the earth has changed a lot over the last billion years. It goes through heating and cooling periods, and when these "ice ages" end, localized flooding is the logical outcome. It's pretty obvious that Noah's flood was an ancient description of one of these events. The last ice age ended during the span of 10-12 years ago. There were floods all over the world and many are documented by dozens of ancient cultures. Worldwide flood has no tangible evidence behind it.
Being dupes sucks!! Someone went to a lot of trouble planting those marine fossils in the mountains. It had to be difficult planting all those marine fossils between the extensive layers of strata.
Marine fossils rose up with the earth when mountains were formed due to shifting of the earth's tectonic plates. In other words, the fossils existed before the mountains did; they were not "planted" there after the fact or carried there by a massive flood. If you believe that the water level worldwide rose high enough to carry fossils near the tops of mountains, then I suppose you also have an explanation for where all that extra water went after that happened?
That's easy to explain IF you believe the Bible is true and that all things are possible with God. Remember, the earth's surface is still 75% covered with water but Psalm 104: 6-10 answers your question. The mountains did in fact rise as you said (Creationists believe the earth surface had a different form pre-flood.). In addition to mountains rising, valleys were formed. I'm no geologist but the oceans could have deepened as the tectonic plates collided and pushed the mountains upward. In reality, the water we have now is the same water that covered the earth.
Why don't you just come out and say that you have no idea what you are talking about? I mean that is the truth here. If we had more people doing that instead of saying things like what I bolded then we would be a lot better off. Why do you feel the need to talk about things you are admittedly ignorant on?
Yeah I wasn't trying to be a dick at all but it looks like you are. When I don't have any useful input on a topic I shut the fuck up about it instead of pulling things out of my ass. As a matter of fact it would be better if you had just said "God did it" and then read what others more knowledgeable on both the topics of creationism and science had to say about it. At least there is a chance you might learn something that way. But you'd rather muddy even your own side of the argument with a bunch of nonsense.
I think I explained GoPats answer very well, thank you! I don't see him complaining like a little female dog.
If you were interested in learning something from him you wouldn't have made such a dumb response to him such as "i'm no geologist...but i'm going to make something up anyways"
The formation of mountains and valleys due to tectonic shifts takes a ridiculously long time. If there was land one moment, then it was completely flooded the next, that means that there was an inconceivably large volume of water that appeared out of nowhere. Even if we assume that somehow could have happened, that means that the earth was completely covered with water for probably millions of years before tectonic shifts could explain the reappearance of land on earth. No land dwelling animals would have survived, and, since you don't believe in evolution, it would be impossible for them to exist today.
Talk about a dumb response, Mr. Kettle!! What do you mean "if I'm interested in learning something from him?" He asked me a question ... I answered. You did not like my answer and went all whiny baby.
... and my main point was that there is no scientific reason to believe that the earth was ever completely flooded. The marine fossils on mountains are not evidence of that happening. If you want to believe it happened because the bible says so, then fine, but it's false to say that belief is backed by scientific evidence and that the bible is more credible based on this non-existent alignment with known facts.
It has nothing to do with me "liking" your answer. I don't need to "like" it. What I need is for it to be rooted in something based on more than you pulling it out of your ass because it sounds good. Your answer was uninformed by your own admission. You are wasting everybody's time and mostly your own because you don't care what the truth is. At the very least you should have the self-awareness to understand that you aren't looking for answers. And that is fine, just know it.
