All such evidence relies on how you interpret the data. You come to the data from a particular worldview. Thus, you look for evidence that supports such a worldview. You rely on the supposition the present is the key to interpreting the past because that is what we are left with. Many of these models work on a specific worldview that depends on anomalies that do become too many. Once that happens, as witnessed many times in our distant past's scientific inquiry, the model or paradigm is thrown out, and a better one is employed. If there is no better model, the current one with all its anomalies is continued.
[a] Wrong! You don't base the evidence on ANY presuppositions. [b] The only two presuppositions you have to necessarily assume to get anywhere is that our reality is true, and [c] that logic is real, nothing else is necessary. [d] The model that is "current" is the model that has the most explanatory power, [e] the one that is the best, we work towards that best explanation, and this is currently it.
[a] So, you tell me you have no presuppositions of the Christian/biblical God?
[b] And how would you know what is the true reality? You assume. Are you the determiner of what is true regarding origins? Please don't give me that BS. Are you the determiner of what is right, what is moral? Take a specific moral right. For instance, please tell me then what is your belief about abortion. Is it right for a woman to kill an innocent unborn human being for any reason she deems fit?
[c] Without considering the other possibility, is it logical to say no God or gods?
[d] The current model (presuming you speak of the Big Bang) does not necessarily exclude belief in God. The universe coming into being does not necessarily exclude God as the reason for its existence. At least belief in God is reasonable. A chance happenstance universe is not. There lacks a reason for such a universe.
[e] Best, in your sense, is a relative term. It changes. You are actually saying that the best human beings have come up with to date, or more precisely, better than all the rest to date. Thus, I would argue that your model is not the best for two reasons. A better model is possible, and why should I believe your subjective opinion (nothing more than a preference concerning morality) has what is necessary for objectivity?
It works with the current, the present, or the past, not necessarily in the future. Best in the highest degree could become just another better than previous models but not better than the current model with another paradigm shift. So, for you, the best is only the best to date.
With morality, you see a continual shifting back and forth between what is believed to be good and right. Abortion is right; abortion is wrong; capital punishment is right; capital punishment is wrong; homosexuality is right; homosexuality is wrong. And you have big tech and big government pushing the boundaries of censorship so that only their view is acceptable on any given subject. The banning of freedom of speech and censoring the President on Twitter is a case in point, but it goes way deeper than that. It appears there is nothing big tech will not do to get its way in indoctrinating the masses, now that there is such a powerful platform of influence - the WWW. Big tech is surveilling and threatening Parler now, yet it leaves up voices far more radical and hateful than anything displayed by President Trump or those on Parler. What a hypocritical double standard.
Is that the kind of country you want to live in?
What specifically do you want me to glean from these links? I could provide you with hundreds of links that question such views, and we could then get into a link war where nothing is stated, and hundreds of pages have to be read without a point being identified. I read your first and second links and noticed some of the language used is opinionated, speculative, not factual.
You took two sources and cherry-picked specific things that would align with your version of events, these things did most likely occur, you provide no discredit besides cherry-picking and not understanding how science works. Science isn't a collection of facts, its the observation of reality, and the scientific method is a process for finding the best and most verified version of that.
I took the posts and noted the highly speculative language involved, the language of what if and maybe, the language of possibility, not a certainty.
Science is verifiable and repeatable;
scientism is not. What we are dealing with in this discussion are events that happened before humanity existed. Thus, there was no human to witness such events. Therefore they are interpreted.
In fact, neither of these are speculative, they are saying, "We thought this, we were wrong, and here's why" that's not speculative, [a] you should change your mind based ont he most rational and reasonable explanation, your entire point isn't' even a good one, [b] its just one that doesn't understand how basic proof works, as I have already pointed out. Link your sources, they have to actually be credible to be worth any merit, conspiracy nuts aren't credible.
[a] That is just the point. Is your point of view the most rational and reasonable explanation? Look at where you begin when you trace the causal tree of existence back to its starting point - blind, random, chance happenstance. What is reasonable about that? Your whole worldview is constructed on this premise. That is your core belief, the one you form your entire worldview from, the one everything else rests upon and is supported by.
[b] What is illogical about the Christian God? From a necessary mind comes other contingent minds. From necessary life comes contingent life. From a necessary intelligent and logical mind comes other intelligent and logical contingent minds. And what do we ever witness? We see that life comes from the living, not from something non-living. We see that logical beings come from other logical beings. We see that beings capable of love and reason are derived from other beings with the same attributes. We do not see otherwise, yet this is what you believe. Thus, it is not me who is being inconsistent and illogical. I believe it is you who created the fairy tale.
Both links are highly speculative, folks. Where are the facts? You have scientists reconstructing what they believe are models of the past while working solely from the present. They don't observe the original conditions. They recreate them on lots of suppositions. When the anomalies pile up to a critical point, the models are rejected in favour of what scientists consider better models. And you put all your faith in these models and these scientists because you think they are better than the biblical mode
There are like 6 sources! Did you ignore them? No? You just found cherry-picked sentences that taken out of context can be construed to fit your narrative? Hmm... it almost reminds me of how you quote the bible, not the point however, they reconstruct what were the past models to the best anyone can demonstrate, if you have better demonstrations, go ahead, [a] demonstrate with empirical data and logically sound reasoning what you think the past was like because you have no scientific authority, reconstructing things is how we have made a vast leap in medical progress, technology etcetera, again, a basic misunderstanding of science.
See my
post in which I gave several facts, and then you dispute them as facts, plus show your view as reasonable with better evidence concerning origins, as we are doing here with the origins of morality.
[a] You speak of
scientific authority (your appeal to authority)
, but in the case of origins of the universe, origins of morality, origins of human existence, what you are really working with is
scientism. Please educate yourself on this subject.
A catastrophic event - millions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the earth.
Are there millions, billions, of fossils in rock layers throughout the earth?
Is a catastrophic event or events necessary for this to happen?
I will wait until you answer those two questions before replying.
No no no, you have to prove that this was caused by one global flood, that's not evidence of anything, you've thrown out a bunch of points without linking anything else.
Edit: Not linking as in sourcing, linking as in link a fact to a conclusion logically
Deflection or stonewalling aimed at taking control away from the speaker (me) asking the questions. I explained from a previous post and backed up my claim; I asked if there were millions/billions of fossils in the rock layers throughout the earth. Is that reasonable to believe? Then I asked if catastrophism was a reasonable or more plausible cause of such happenings? If not, what are you proposing, millions/billions of animals and plants slowly decomposing away in a plain or valley all over the world that slowly fossilized? For what reason?
Do you deny that catastrophism is necessary for the fossil record as we have it? Where are your links and sourcing you accuse me of neglecting? Instead of answering the questions, you make a big hullabaloo and avoidance of answering the questions. Another way to answering this mush is by charging the
Tu quoque Fallacy. Thus, a possible resource would be to ignore your posts as my prerogative until you address these questions. But I do not usually operate in such a manner unless the rhetoric becomes highly volatile or unproductive.
