Well, I'd offer the Geologic Column myself, buried in which is an immense abundance of all kinds of creatures, many we aren't familiar with today, which should say something about pre-Flood conditions, such as that it had to be immensely fertile to produce that teeming life. But of course anything you find in the Geologic Column you attribute to a time much older than the Biblical Creation and you invent an environment for it specific to accidental trinkets buried with it in its grave site, all of which destroys the Biblical account.
Now we are kinda getting somewhere. the geologic column DOES show that the planet was different in the past. However, you seem to be the only person in existence to claim it was different the way you claim. Does this fact give you no pause? Does this not make you think you need to do a hefty amount of data digging to get some hard evidence worthy of convincing others since you are intent on having discussion about it?
Where is your non faith and belief evidence to support this? I will keep asking for this as long as you keep saying it was not a miracle and that there is evidence for it.
You told me earlier that you had the same education as the rest of us and just believe what your teachers and preachers told you. Why did you choose to not believe your teacher about what they said about the geologic column and instead stuck to the bible? Why did you accept their explanation of the water cycle but not the geology of the planet?
But demanding that kind of data from a time before a huge destruction that wiped out everything is really unreasonable.
It's only unreasonable if you are unwilling to do the work. If you continue to rail against everyone here about us being delusional and your model being the obvious choice, do you think it is honest of yourself to not be willing to show your work?
The fact that we have a written mention of atmospheric water that sounds a lot fuller than what we have today, and a written mention that the Earth was watered by a mist, is really quite a bit of data under the circumstances.
We have an even fuller, more detailed record written in the rocks themselves. We have methods, methods that you yourself can test for validity, to measure what these rocks say. These methods do not in any way require interpretation and ONLY rely on data that anyone can access.
I want you to show me that same data you keep saying exists that says what you say.
Not all of us are geared for a career in science.
I dissected a frog in some science lab or other, that is not where my interests lay.
unless of course you're going to go on to become a scientist, which was not my interest.
I completely understand that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to take such a liking to science.
But then I have to ask, why do you engage in scientific discussions if you admit to not having the proper knowledge or passion? You talk to everyone here as if they are the idiots, yet you admit to not really knowing more than a passing knowledge about these subjects.
Is that honest of you?
it would be foolish in the extreme to throw it out just because the kind of data you prefer isn't available.
It's not about what data I prefer, it is about what data is useful in these discussions. No one can have the same faith as you. No one. What we CAN have, though, is the same hard data and do the same tests. When you offer your data and the test you used to come to whatever conclusion you come to, anyone else can do the same test and see if your conclusions are valid.
That is why science is useful for discovering the world and faith is useful for discovering faith.
Of course, but that experience tells a person absolutely nothing about the chemistry of growing plants.
Not true at all. You can set up an experiment to determine that plants cannot grow in rocks without sunlight or water, but instead need healthy soil, sunlight and water.
I have a challenge for you: go watch a few episodes of Mythbusters to see how fun the simple scientific method can be and how you can do it yourself with little advanced schooling. I also ask that you check out the new iteration of Cosmos. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and crew, it seems to me, went to extreme lengths to make this version palatable to people on the fence about science.
Would you respect a discussion with me about Jesus if I never read the bible?
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
™ Version 4.2
(1)