Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 183 by theStudent]

In post 183, we see theStudent demonstrating a lack of understanding about logic.

Question:
Why are we here?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created man for the earth.

Question:
How and why did the universe begin?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created the universe.

Question:
How did life originate?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God created all life on earth.

Question:
What is the future of the universe, earth, and life?

Answer:
Scientists - We don't know?
The Bible - God will bless and sustain life on earth forever.

tS presents things as if there are only two options (what scientists say and what the Bible says).
This is the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy - presenting options as if there are only two. There are far more proposed answers than just scientists and the Bible - why no mention of other religions?
There is also the god of the gaps logical fallacy - scientists (supposedly) say we don't know, therefore the god explanation offered by the Bible is somehow automatically the 'correct' choice.

I don't know if it's a formal logical fallacy (one with a name) but there is also the one where tS presents the answers from the Bible as if they are obvious 'truths' e.g. "The Bible - God created all life on earth" that don't need evidence to establish that they are actually true.

[Divine Insight]

I don't know if it's a formal logical fallacy (one with a name) but there is also the one where tS presents the answers from the Bible as if they are obvious 'truths' e.g. "The Bible - God created all life on earth" that don't need evidence to establish that they are actually true.

Exactly. He's doing precisely what the forum debate rules forbid. He simply claims, "The Bible says so". Like as if that constitutes some sort of "evidence".

Not only this but his main argument fails miserably.

His basic argument is this:

The world is too complex to have happened by accident, therefore there must exist an infinitely complex God who did happen by accident. After all, if all intelligent things must necessarily have been designed then who "Intelligently Designed God"?

He can't seem to see the flaw in his own argument.

Also as others have pointed out repeatedly, even if the universe was intelligently designed that wouldn't point to the Biblical narrative of God anyway. The Biblical God is anything but intelligent.

So even if we did scientifically conclude that our universe had to have been designed by an intelligent designer this would rule out the Biblical God as a candidate for a description of that designer in any case.

[Neatras]

What we need to understand about a theist's position is that they have decidedly different standards for approaching science. It can do with how they've been raised, for example.

In the video, we're given access to the childhood documents given by someone who was raised in a religious environment that attempted to control his education and make him into a darling little Christian.

Over the course of the video, we discover some damning things.

1. The question writers assert, without evidence, that the Bible is used to confirm scientific discoveries and theories.

2. They also assert that evolution is based on faith, and creationism is based on logic and facts.

3. When faced with the need to actually present 'evidence', they resort to the Bible, trying their hardest to turn it into a self-fulfilling piece of evidence. But this is logically flawed through and through.

Just by realizing that the tactics used to indoctrinate children are reflected in theStudent's behavior leads me to think he may have been either a student at a private religious school, or even a teacher. This could be completely wrong, though if it was, that would cause quite an interesting coincidence.

Whether or not theStudent has had an active or passive role in the religious indoctrination of children using faulty logic, it ultimately doesn't matter. What I'm trying to do is highlight theStudent's flawed tactics by bringing it to light with how it is applied in the modern world. Creating distorted views of reality and influencing people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue.

theStudent will soon reply, and in this he will claim, "Well evolutionists make assumptions too! So that means it's okay when I do it. After all, all the evidence is on my side." Though I'd be remiss not to point out that in that statement, the necessity to provide evidence is deflected in order to save face.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 41 by Kenisaw]

Your total erroneous display of logic here is stunning. I'm starting to wonder why I continue to engage you in conversation when you can't seem to grasp any of the fundamentals of the topics you keep trying to debate with everyone.

Did you really not realize that your "failed" argument above represents your argument, not mine????

These are your words Kenisaw, not mine. (bold font mine)

If you cannot prove something does exist, the only rational conclusion to reach is that it does not.

I simply used your... not logic, your reasoning, which is saying:
If you cannot prove something does exist, then it does not exist.
FLAWED - not logical.

Why do I have to constantly explain the nuances of your own native language to you?

I'm not saying, with 100% certainty, that gods don't exist. What I am saying is that there is no reason to think they do at this time because there isn't any data or empirical evidence showing that they exist. It is illogical to conclude something exists when there is no evidence supporting that claim. I've explained this in several threads now, and the point seems to elude you anyway. And all you have to do to dispel this point is offer up some evidence of any god, including whatever flavor you've picked to worship. But you never seem to get to that point in the conversation...I wonder why...

If you made a mistake, I can accept that.
I make mistakes, and I am not ashamed to admit it. I am not perfect.
But one thing I would not do, is try to twist things to make myself appear right, and the other person seem wrong.

I'm not perfect, and I make mistakes just like the next person. But I did not make one here. This is the same thing I've been telling you since you joined this site.

My arguments are really very simple and direct. They aren't fancy. That's why I know what I've said previously and what my conclusions are from thread to thread. Feel free to check older threads and see for yourself.

As I said, they are some individuals that just have negative comments to throw at my posts, which always carry the negative message, "theStudent does not know what he is talking about. He simply doesn't understand. He is ignorant." So basically, theStudent is stupid.
I really don't think that is skillful debating.

To engage in a debate, both sides need to have the ability to discuss the topic at hand with some semblance of accuracy and clarity. I don't feel you've shown the ability to do that on many of the topics that you have chosen to create OPs on to start debates. It's not a question of your intelligence, it's a question of what you think you know based on the information you've been provided at creationist websites. You think those sites are accurate and dependable, and they aren't. You continue using them for your source material, without verifying how accurate it is. It's like going to a Democrat website to get information on Donald Trump...

If a person isn't even starting with a valid understanding of a topic, it is entirely my responsibility and the responsibility of others to point this out to them. If they have a misunderstanding of how logic works for example, pointing it out to them is only going to improve their ability to debate as well as their general knowledge base.

I would also like to mention that just because a comment is negative does not mean it isn't accurate or germane to the conversation.

If I thought that you said something really stupid, I'm not going to say to you, "Well Kenisaw, that's really, stupid", and give some other dry comment.
I'm going to show you that it is not logical, through debating, as I usually would.

Isn't that what the site is for, or is it to show who is better able to insult, and demean another?

It is what this site is for, up to a point. But when a counterpoint to an OP has been made by several people, and yet the same mistakes are being made time and again by the originator of the OP, a change of direction in commentary may be called for to make the individual aware of both how they are being perceived and that they are missing a main point of the discussion that affects all the other points. Lack of knowledge about a topic and faulty use of logic are most definitely affect the entire discussion, regardless of whatever nuance of the subject may be currently tossed around.

No, it's not the truth, and you have no idea why. That much is obvious...

Are you saying that what this GP said is not truthful?

some things are not scientifically explainable.

Would you care to tell me why, since I

have no idea why

?

I don't know who or what "GP" refers to, but regardless of that...No, I don[t agree that some things are "not scientifically explainable".

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 44 by Kenisaw]

If you can't prove it, there is no reason to think it is real

Do you think a thought just popped into people's minds, "Oh, God."?
Do you think that's what's going on here?
If so, no. That isn't the case.

Where really, did the knowledge of God/gods come from?

Let's answer that with another question. Where, really, did "knowledge" of leprechauns, unicorns, orcs, elves, etc come from?

You appear to be stating that it isn't possible for people to have made up gods. If you want to delve into that in greater detail and offer up some reasoning behind that, please be my quest. I'm curious how the logic of that plays out...

If you are thinking that's how it started, you would be mistaken.

Sorry if I don't just take your word for it here, Student. Why, specifically, am I mistaken? What evidence or empirical data can you offer me that shows that gods are based on actual beings?

if you cannot show that something exists, there is no reason to think it does.

You mean that scientists on the hunt for ET, are wasting their money, and God knows what else?

They may be. We don't know for sure if ETs exist or not. We do know, however, that life is plausible in the universe though, correct? After all, you and I are evidence of that. So looking for something we know can exist may be a waste of time and money, but it is not a search that is based on ZERO evidence.

You know, of course, what IS based on zero evidence, right?...See the difference?

Absolutely. Because all god beings (not just your particular favorite) have interacted with the universe (like becoming human for instance), that means they have to leave evidence behind (laws of the universe). Which means that there should be gatherable data and information about them. Is there any empirical data for any of the god claims ever made in the entirety of human history? None has been presented. So the rational conclusion to reach is that gods don't exist.

How do you know this?

How do I know which part? You quote several statements together here, and I don't know which part you are referring to. To cover all the bases I will try to answer anything you might have meant.

We know gods have interacted with the universe because gods and their followers claim they have.

We know this leaves evidence behind because interacting with the universe leaves information behind (information cannot be destroyed) and every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and so forth. The conservation laws of the universe have never been shown to be false.

We know evidence is gatherable and testable.

There isn't any evidence of any supernatural claim, ever.

all god beings (not just your particular favorite) have interacted with the universe
All gods would have to leave physical traces of their interactions of the universe behind.

You are not a god, are you? Or omniscient?[/qiuote]

No, but no one has ever been able to find an exception to the universal conservation laws. Which means either a god would have to be OF this universe (and therefore not supernatural), or they don't exist.

If you claim that your particular god being is omnipotent, then that is a logical fallacy with automatically means that it can't possibly exist. It has been explained to you in previous threads my "omni" god claims are logical nonsense and any being that supposedly has such abilities cannot possible exist...

Each of the three questions start with if.
You tried to answer the first two. How come this one gets treated as though it doesn't start with if? Therefore, it is not answered.

First off, the first two were answered, rather completely and succinctly I might add, and you offered no response other than to ask questions. Unless you can raise a viable objection to either of my points, I'd say those two parts are completed.

The third one I get a word game out of you. To help you out, substitute "Since" for "If" at the start of my answer and see if that helps. A god can't be all powerful and all knowing. It's a logical impossibility. Unless you can raise a viable objection to the third of my points, I'd say this part is completed as well...

Not only are the questions NOT impossible, there MUST be evidence of all god beings and supernatural claims because the universe has conservation laws which are known to be true, and all the gods have supposedly interacted with this universe.

So scientists have evidence, and knowledge of everything?

Nope, and never will. All the evidence they do have to date shows that there should be evidence of gods that interact with the universe, because all the evidence to date shows that there are universal conservation laws. Which means...since you claim that there is a god creature...where is your evidence?

Notice how this discussion always comes back to that, Student? It's not coincidence. It's the single largest hole in any supernatural claim, and as much as you want to avoid it, you can't.

So, since you are the one claiming it exists, when do we get your evidence showing that it does???

Again??? What do I have to do? Write it on paper; send a fax; come by your home... What???

You have to post it. Not some YouTube videos of some guy or gal giving their opinion on what the complexity of the universe means, or some claim that humans existing prove there is a god. That isn't evidence or data. I've explained to you that existence doesn't prove source. You offered zero rebuttals to this fact. You've made other arguments that have been shown to be logically and factually false. I realize you don't think you have to accept these, but you can't refute them either, which means they can't constitute evidence.

Empirical data and evidence is measurable, repeatable, testable, verifiable. Where is yours?

[Kenisaw]

Would you consider it to be justice to condemn someone to a horrible inhumane eternal punishment for simply having misunderstood something even though they were actually a loving peaceful person?

I am innocent. Some other dude did it. This sentence is cruel and unusual. GOD has no authority over me. GOD is evil so I should not be punished. GOD's people do worse....ad infinitum.

Does this match the quotations of Christ about weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth?

[The phrase "(there shall be) weeping and gnashing of teeth appears seven times in the New Testament as a description of the torments of the damned in Hell. - Wiki]

That's cool how you wrote all those words and didn't actually answer his question. Someone ought to create a name for that...

[Kenisaw]

Given the paucity of evidence for the many proposed gods, the most rational conclusion is that such gods do not exist. Further, as the god in question is more and more defined, there's a greater paucity of evidence, and a greater rationality for believing they don't exist.

That's interesting, because every scientist that speaks of evidence of something out there that can help them understand why and how the universe came, mentions God.
Higgs boson, a particle in physics sometimes referred to as the God's Particle

As frequently happens, you don't even bother to read the material IN THE VERY LINK YOU PROVIDE to understand the context of something. "Lederman, a leading researcher in the field, wanted to title his book The Goddamn Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question? But his editor decided that the title was too controversial and convinced Lederman to change the title to The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?" Which is where the nickname came from. As Peter Higgs, who the boson is named after, has said: "It wasn't even Lederman's choice. "He wanted to refer to it as that 'goddamn particle' and his editor wouldn't let him," says Higgs." Neither Higgs or Lederman believe in the supernatural. Based on polls, 97% of scientists don't. So your claim that "every science" etc is a blatantly false statement...

[youtube][/youtube]

Is that a form of mockery, or what?
I was of the opinion that it seems to be.

I don't think Kaku is mocking per se. He doesn't have your belief Student, a belief in some kind of a personal god being. But I think Kaku could be described as a pantheist, with a Spinoza like attitude toward the universe. Kaku is also purposefully vague about the whole topic of god when asked too, almost likehe doesn't want to insult anyone. He makes a living more on his TV and internet stuff than he does doing science anymore, and I sometimes wonder if he is playing both sides of the coin on that topic.

Stephen Hawking also made reference to the "Mind of God",
It looks more to me like a quest to reach the ultimate and say, "Hey folks. Look. This is God. We have found God! It this tiny particle called xPUltima. Ha Ha Ha."

I think we both know Hawking is an avowed atheist, so not sure what your point here is...

Professor Michio Kaku - theoretical physicist is specializing in String Theory - The Physics/Theory of Everything
He seems to be the chief spokesman for CERN (I'm not sure).
This is an older video, but you can watch a new playlist of his videos here.

He does not work at CERN. He is a brilliant man, but as noted above I don't think his focus is purely research anymore. He does a lot of media stuff (and he is good at that, and explains things well, so I am not knocking it), and has made a lot of money doing so. Much more than a theoretical physicist makes. I think that is his focus nowadays...

[youtube][/youtube]The quest to find the fifth Force.
Found it! - CERN researchers confirm existence of the Force

Can I get your opinion though?
Do you think my opinion holds any water?
If it does, then it sounds to me like not just God, but "gods" do exixt.

Uh, Student...The date of that article is April 1st...it mentions a little green spokesperson that talks just like Yoda. April Fools, perhaps? You really don't have any idea what you post, do you. You just search for stuff and slap it up. Unbelievable. Why bother having these conversations when you make no effort at research or understanding of the material? That's a serious question by the way.

Water-rich gem points to vast 'oceans' beneath Earth's surface, study suggests

Yup. Ringwoodite. It's a mineral whose chemical structure includes water molecules. 1.5% of the mass of the rock if memory serves me right. You do know that this isn't liquid water, right? It's locked in the mineral. Is this going to be where you start claiming that there was a worldwide flood? Please do, that is probably my favorite religious myth to smash...

Magma in mantle has deep impact: Rocks melt at greater depth than once thought

OK. Thanks for sharing. I have no idea what you are relating this to. Please enlighten me.

Affirm. God is a concept.

Affirmed. Many people do hold your option.
They havn't proven that.
So to say it is a concept period, is not accurate. It is a possibility, and if that possibility is a reality, then it is more than a concept.

It is not a possibility. The concept violates known laws of the universe. If that concept was possible than the universal laws of the universe would not be. So in order for it to be possible you have to show that the universal laws are not universal, or how it is they can be violated in instances of this god doing something. I look forward to your evidence and empirical data...

As no supernatural, "god given" miracles have ever been shown to have happened, it's far more rational to conclude they don't.

Really?

How is cloning a miracle?

They are even looking into making superhumans (imortals), real magicians

Not a miracle, and not "superhumans". You obviously aren't watching the stuff you post...

And they believe these civilizations may already exist -
After watching these, tell me - is it irrational?
Unless you think this guy is a nutcase?

What does this have to do with miracles? It doesn't. Doesn't have to do with anything supernatural. Why this is included in the paragraph responding to Joey's comment about miracles is beyond me.

This is just a repeat.
And again, no proof is given, to even consider.
I hope you watch, and enjoy the videos above.
If that isn't science, then I give up.

Nanobots making superhumans is not science. It is science fiction. Maybe one day that will happen, but if you'd watch the video you'd know there are a whole list of practical hurdles that would have to be overcome. Type 1 civilizations are science fiction. There is no evidence they exist. Cloning has been done to a few animals, but cloning isn't much different than sexual reproduction other than the DNA of the cloned animal exactly matches that of it's "parent", while sexual reproduction does not. It is not a pathway to immortality.

If you think this is actual science, then you don't know science very well. That's a point that I believe has been pointed out to you previously...

However, I appreciate your input.
The thing with science as we see, is, it's an ongoing process.
Sometimes you have to wait a long time for verification, and even then it may not be the correct conclusion. We just have to wait, and see if they get there.
Scientists prepare to rewrite the physics textbooks

And science always progresses with empirical data and evidence. Got any for gods? I didn't think so...

The Bible is only an arms length away, and we don't have to wait years to get solid reliable facts, that do not change, over time. Christians know full well, why that is the case.
They have the evidence.

This is a blatant lie, and you ought to apologize to everyone for making it...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 185 by Bust Nak]

So where does that leave people who don't have that vitally important information, when there are three camps all claiming to have contradicting "vitally important information straight" provided directly by God via the holy spirit? Nothing you said has changed my point: It's just your words against theirs.

Your point hasn't changed, neither has mine. There are winners, and there are losers. There are rules.
That's being played out in Rio, right now.

The laws of logic:
identity - A is A.
non-contradictory - A cannot be A, and yet not be A.
excluded middle - A is either A, or it is not.

That's plainly false. Neither Thor nor Poseidon are fine. That right there is what I was talking about re: confirmation bias. You are thinking of them being fine with the god of pantheism.

All Greek and Roman gods, can be proven to be mythical.

No idea what he is. All I can say is if he exist he is naturalistic and material.
Yes.

So now you are saying, you know?
Okay, there is no gain in touching this. I can't know for you.

But it does mean it is unscientific. That's your topic, remember? Like I said earlier, you've handicapped yourself by phrasing the question of God in a science context.

I think you'll fine the law of conservation says, energy cannot be created or destroyed.

I already acknowledged your view on that.
However, in my thread, I referred to what science is.
As regards what's natural, persons have their views on that too.

Concerning energy/matter...
Carl Sagan says:

At the beginning of this universe, there were no galaxies, stars or planets, no life or civilizations.

He refers to the change from that state to the present universe as

the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.

So there is a possible theory that the universe could have come into existence through a transformation of energy and matter. That is a possibility, is it?
That could be considered scientific evidence - that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe.

Also, the universe started organized, and continues ordered.
Astrophysicist Alan Lightman acknowledged that scientists

...find it mysterious that the universe was created in such a highly ordered condition.
...any successful theory of cosmology should ultimately explain this entropy problem

— why the universe has not become chaotic.

Reason and logic tells us that a mere explosion doesn't produce such results. (although they claim there was no bang, just expansion - expansion from what? A speck smaller than the smallest part of an atom. How do they know this? The same way they "know" there was a LUCA. Spec-spec-speculation... as usual.)
Hence, there is scientific evidence that a lawgiver would be the source of the laws, and order, that govern the universe.
There is therefore, a wealth of scientific evidence that supports an intelligent creator/designer.

Such evidence has moved many leading scientists of the 20th century to speak publicly of creation and a Creator. Among these have been William T. Kelvin, Dmitri Mendeleev, Robert A. Millikan, Arthur H. Compton, Paul Dirac, George Gamov, Warren Weaver and Wernher von Braun, to name some.

What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the Universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation.

Newsweek magazine of November 9, 1998, reviewed the implications of discoveries regarding the creation of the universe. It said that the facts “suggested that matter and motion originated rather as Genesis [in the Bible] suggests, ex nihilo, out of nothing, in a stupendous explosion of light and energy.�
Note the reasons Newsweek gave for comparing the beginning of the universe with the Bible’s description of the event.
“The forces loosed were — are — remarkably (miraculously?) balanced: If the Big Bang had been slightly less violent, the expansion of the universe would have been less rapid, and would soon (in a few million years, or a few minutes — in any case, soon) have collapsed back on itself. If the explosion had been slightly more violent, the universe might have dispersed into a soup too thin to aggregate into stars. The odds against us were — this is just the right word — astronomical. The ratio of matter and energy to the volume of space at the Big Bang must have been within about one quadrillionth of 1 percent of ideal.�
Newsweek suggested that there was, as it were, a “Tuner� of the universe, observing: “Take but degree away, . . . and what follows is not just discord but eternal entropy and ice. So, what — who? — was the great Tuner?�

If this is not scientific evidence, then it is clear... we have none.
However, in our view, we do have scientific evidence of a creator.
It's of course, not my intention to change the views of others who hold to a different view.
The FACTS show that we do.

What's the empirical evidence for dark matter? Gravitational laws?
What's the empirical evidence for the cause of the Big Bang Theory? A natural cause?
Well, there it is.

Well there you go. They don't like the idea of a beginning of the universe, yet was convinced by the evidence. That right there, is shows the idea that scientists reject God because they don't like God, not because of evidence, is bunk. All you need to convince scientists of God, is empirical evidence, they will accept it no matter how much they dislike the idea.

Nooooo.
You're forgetting the multiverse theory.
Our universe began.
Yet they come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that our universe spun off of multiple universes?

Did those universes begin?
Sounds to me like a "where did God come from" situation.
So

[strike]All you need to convince scientists of God, is empirical evidence, they will accept it no matter how much they dislike the idea.[/strike]

I think from now on, I'm going to use Jastrow's expression - a mindless material process.

Science will some day explain how a mindless material process created the universe� is every bit as absurd as the statement, “Science will some day explain how I gave birth to myself, instead of my mother.

Ha Ha. Funny though.

We do not know how the first cause always existed. Nor do we need to know imho, and I believe, nor can we know, because that would mean that we are no longer human. Since we would need super intelligence to comprehend.
So scientists, imo, are "chasing the wind".
Imo, they should accept the facts.
The facts are, the first cause is, and it is the source of dynamic energy, responsible for our existence. Now they should move on.

Why is it that persons refer to the first cause as God?
Is it because it rolled off the top of their head, like "DING", and it sounded nice - hence God?


Nada.
It is because, the Bible, which is available to +90% of the world's population, and which people came to trust, because of it proving to be reliable, said "God did it." The Bible says God is the first cause.
It also says a whole lot of other things, which many people realize to be reliable.
Hence, people believe what the Bible says, and are convinced it contains the answers to the scientists - "don't know"s.

I have already demonstrated that the Bible is credible, by using two major kinds of sources, to establish the facts and information that represent the most accurate version of events.
These are the primary sources - accounts of people who were there, and secondary sources - documentation and analysis of primary sources and other relevant information after the fact.

With regard to the questions on why the creator cannot be gods such as Zeus, Hercules, Thor, and all the other Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian gods, etc.
The God of the Bible is not said to be created, nor is the God of the Bible said to be a material deity, such as the sun moon stars, or other elements.
The Bible says that God is the only true and living God, unlike the mythological gods, created and attended to by mortals.

I have a question based on your reply to an earlier question..
Which of the following is not science.

• Neurophysiology
• Neuroscience
• Psychology
• Metaphysics

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 191 by rikuoamero]

tS presents things as if there are only two options (what scientists say and what the Bible says).
This is the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy - presenting options as if there are only two. There are far more proposed answers than just scientists and the Bible - why no mention of other religions?
There is also the god of the gaps logical fallacy - scientists (supposedly) say we don't know, therefore the god explanation offered by the Bible is somehow automatically the 'correct' choice.

I don't know if it's a formal logical fallacy (one with a name) but there is also the one where tS presents the answers from the Bible as if they are obvious 'truths' e.g. "The Bible - God created all life on earth" that don't need evidence to establish that they are actually true.

The way you put this rikuoamero, brought this scenario to mind.
Do you remember the time when, to some parents, certain things were taboo, and they used to tell the little ones, "The stork brought you." in reply to the question, "Mommy, Daddy, how did I get here."?
Then in later years, when the child found out the truth, he/she would say, "No, I came from Mommy's belly."
Did the truth only become the truth after the child found it out?
Was the child filling a gap with something, because the evidence did not point to the stork?

The answer to both questions, is an emphatic NO.

This situation is so similar.
I know you guys are smart, so I don't need to show the comparison.

But I will.
The Bible wasn't written yesterday.
It revealed the truth centuries ago.
When scientific discoveries are made, that harmonizes with the Bible, it verifies the truthfulness and reliability of the scriptures.
So the Bible is not used to fill any gaps. Just as the truth doesn't change to fit a discovered fact.

Just as the truth, although unknown to the child, was always, that the child came, not by a stork, but from mommy's belly.
The truth was always - the universe had a beginning, it was created; the earth is just right for man, because he was created to live there; etc., etc.
Sorry, no God of the gaps, as in the case of the evolution theory, which chasms they are frantically trying to fill.

Imagine this.
Christians have a trustworthy ship, with a compass that's 100% reliable.
And persons are trying to bargain with them to trade it for a patched up "rust bucket" of a ship, painted over to appear solid. And get this - no compass - headed straight for doom.

Thanks but...
Nope.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 199 by theStudent]

I'm still waiting on your reply to my post 189 below:

[Replying to post 183 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 173 by RonE]

scientifically credible evidence

If this is all you want, you already got it.
It's not anything that will be accepted as scientifical, on these forums, so it would not be worth repeating.

Why would you say "you already got it"? When you recognize that what you presented is not scientifically credible?

I already mentioned, that sensible people acknowledge that the Bible, and science are in agreement, as I mentioned before, with one exception, which I have made myself clear on.

Perhaps there might be a time when more can be said after a few things are presented.
But for now, we are at a sort of... I don't know... back and forth?

Actually, where we are is with you having failed to provide evidence to back up your claims of a supernatural, all powerful god who is the "intelligent designer". So there are two options for you, either retract your claims or support them with the evidence I requested.

It's time you stopped ignoring these requests for proof of your claims.