SkepticalOne

Depending on context, yes, I'm thinking.

1. Are atheists REALLy nitpicking..or pointing out what requires little interpretation? 

2. Are theists REALLY interpreting the Bible too literally...how do you know?

'Some of them. But both terms atheist and theist, encompass such large groupings, it can't 'quite be applied. Except in reference to those 'some of them.

I justify God allowing Israel to experience chattel slavery in Egypt as a typological lesson on what bondage is. As pointed out, I justify the type of slavery or servitude practiced in Israel as different from New World slavery or ANE slavery, a cut above. I did this in Post # 223.

Do you think the standards of evidence in a court of law are too high? Would you be willing to be found guilty of murder based on anecdote, hearsay, or spectral evidence? No? Then why should we accept such a low standard for gods...something arguably more important if true?

It depends on what you are referencing.

Again, if your proof for the Christian deity is built on the unreasonableness of all other positions, then there is no way you should have come to a conclusion.  It is simply not possible that you have evaluated all other positions.  Your reasoning is flawed and disingenuous.

I don't have to evaluate all possibilities on the impossibility of the contrary. 

A single super complex "explanation" (that is 'beyond our comprehension') is not more simple than multiple sensible explanations.

How is that super complex? God!

A subject can be an object? If a subject is the object in your objective morality...wouldn't that make your morality subjectivev?

I have already discussed this with you in previous posts on the other thread. This is a definist or equivocation fallacy. [...]

You demonstrate you do not understand atheism. For me, it is a derivation of evaluating my former beliefs and finding them wanting - not a starting place as you continue to assert. I don't reject gods as a possibility,

Not true, you do reject Him by looking at the universe in a solely mechanical or mythological naturalistic way. There is not supernatural consideration involved. 

I just don't view them as very probable given the sad state of evidence in their favor. I also don't discount the supernatural as a possibility, but until it can be demonstrated there is little reason to build it into an epistemology and/or a life philosophy. 

You keep saying that. Demonstrate is rather than assert it.

As an atheist, all the options you listed are available to me as well, but I have one more: nature alone. We have only ever found what was was thought supernatural to be poorly understood nature, and never ever has the supernatural been confirmed.

Yet you have failed to justify how nature alone is capable of explaining anything regarding origins - origins of our existence, the existence of the universe, the existence of conscious beings from things devoid of consciousness, the existence of moral rights and wrongs. 

If you or anyone wants me to accept their (supernatural) beliefs, then attacking well-accepted standards of evidence, knowledge, or our well-founded understanding of reality is not the way to go. You'll need to do better than that. 

Cop-out - well worn cliches. I do not find your standards of evidence acceptable when it comes to origins.

Subpoint A: Geology

Sediments:

Some sediments appear to be removed as tectonic plates slide slowly (an inch or two per year) beneath continents. An estimated 1 billion tons of sediments are removed this way each year. The net gain is thus 19 billion tons per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would accumulate in less than 12 million years, not billions of years! 

Rock layers: 

There are whole sequences of these hardened sedimentary rock layers being bent and folded, but without fracturing. [...] The heat and pressure would have transformed these layers into metamorphic rocks. Yet Tapeats Sandstone is still sandstone, a sedimentary rock!

Subpoint B: Astronomy

Faint Sun Paradox:

Evidence now supports astronomers’ belief that the sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the sun’s core, but there is a huge problem. As the hydrogen fuses, it should change the composition of the sun’s core, gradually increasing the sun’s temperature. If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past. In fact, the earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved.

Comets:

A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But once each orbit a comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly reduces a comet’s size, and eventually comets fade away. They can’t survive billions of years.

Subpoint C: Paleontology

A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer [...] It is quite literally impossible for such detail to be preserved for 65 million years.

Contention 2: Unlikelihood of Big Bang/Old Earth

Occam’s Razor states that that which has the fewest adjustable parameters should be chosen. However, the Big Bang theory opposes Occam’s Razor, because it can only exist with innumerable adjustable parameters.

The OT standards exceeds the ANE standards, for the ANE standards were the standard that Israel witnessed in the cultures around them, the standard they had experienced in Egypt, the world OT Israel lived in, the world they understood. God's best is always truth and freedom, justice and compassion for those who do right. Doing right is a problem for we all fall short of His standard, the glory that is God. Thus, He works within our fallenness. He chose a people out of the nations and cultures of that time where cruel slavery was a common practice, such as in Egypt. He worked within that system. BUT, the kind of slavery experieinced by Israel in Egypt and the chattel slavery of cruelty was not what God wanted Israel to observe and practice. God strictly spoke against such treatment. IF you read the article by Glenn Miller you would further understand this, yet you continue to act as if you did not. That article is very good in making the distinctions clear. It has a section, section 2, that covers property, a part of which I quoted from. You ignored it. Here it is again:

Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 

Insufficient in what way?

I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 

Worded differently, but this is still attempting to shift the burden, Peter. It's about substantiating your own claim of the existence of a being beyond detection.  The time to believe something is when it has been demonstrated.

No, it is an attempt to justify my worldview (what I place my faith in) as sensible and others as not by comparison and contrast. 

Don't be so obtuse and/or dishonest. Observation lead to deference to *Occam's razor* and *methodological naturalism*...not whatever you wish to put after "Observation?"

Dishonest? 

The simplest explanation is God. The simplest explanation is that personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings.

An object or mindless thing? How is that a person? The object of worship (what we focus on) is a Person, not a thing or inanimate object. Only a personal being can prescribe. An object like a rock or a table cannot. 

Look, you as an atheist are left to a very limited view of the world, the universe, existence, morality. Since you disavow God or gods as lacking evidence you would answer ultimate questions or questions of existence and how things operate from the standpoint of naturalism and empiricism. That means that you have one option in looking at the world, the universe, through a naturalistic explanation. That is how you do look at the world. You discount God, or gods otherwise you would not be an atheist. God or chance still stands.  

Me, as a professor of faith in Jesus Christ would have a combination of options; this God alone, supernaturally, this God through natural means, or this God through both natural and supernatural means. The Bible reveals God alone, supernaturally. I argue that is the most plausible and reasonable explanation. 

Much like the Biblical god (or any god), Voldemort has never been established to exist in the real world. As such, very little is 'necessary' to judge either.

[...] many people throughout history have thought of God as self-evident. That is worth exploring. What has made them think this way?

"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 

"Faith is the basis for my belief." [...] We both have faith. 

This is still attempting to shift the burden.  You have the misguided idea that if you can disprove my views (or more correctly, what you *think* my views are), your belief will be true by default, but that's not how the burden of proof works. Your beliefs are either true or not true.  If you cannot bear the burden of showing your belief true, then you remove the burden from me and everyone else of accepting it - it get's dismissed.

I have made a claim, that your worldview does not make sense without first presupposing God, nor can it. 

You're back to the false dichotomy I have already shown to be flawed thinking.

No, you have not. You have not shown how any other worldview is more viable, more reasonable.

Shifting the burden, again.  Substantiating your claims would be much much easier than refuting thousands of other options. 

You were the one who claimed there are other options. I claimed that other options are not reasonable and invited you to pick one and demonstrate it is more reasonable or even in the slightest bit reasonable. Now, you are welcome to believe something that is irrational or inconsistent. But once you make the claim, which you did, I ask for you to demonstrate it as reasonable.  

You seem blissfully unaware that it is observation that leads us to accept Occam's razor and methodological naturalism. I wasn't referring specifically to Biblical prophecy, but now that you mention it, Irenaeus  is additional evidence.

Observation? Where do you observe personal being coming from something devoid of personhood? 

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 

Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...

Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

You've created a special category for your god: an object that has a mind. You've found yet another broken logical path that won't get you to the destination you think it maps to. 

How is that? Support your claim and make it clearer as to what you mean.

Chattel slavery...the kind of slavery where people are treated as property rather than people. 

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

^ --- Like that. 

It seems you object to it when done by the Egyptians, but find it acceptable when codified by the god of the Bible through Moses. What a confused position. I'll ask again.  Is slavery wrong? Why, or why not?

Again, you have to understand the ANE and the practices of those times to understand the biblical narrative on this subject.

do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God?

Yep, just like I have what it takes to judge Voldemort. ;-) 

No idea what that means since I have never watched or read Harry Potter. 

"No evidence" is not my position.  What evidence there is... is insufficient.  Anecdote, hearsay, prophecy, etc., wouldn't be sufficient to find a person guilty of murder...why would it be sufficient grounds for a person's (or god's) existence? 

I am convinced your position comes from ignorance. You have probably read very little on prophecy or Preterism while I have around thirty books on the subject of Preterism alone and more on prophecy.

That's literally the definition of shifting the burden.  It's not my job to disprove your claim - it's your job as the claimant to substantiate it.

It ties together. I am looking for your justification. I am contrasting my worldview with yours. I'm saying that it takes more credulous faith on your part than mine in that my position can make sense of origins, yours can't

I say that each one of those thousand options, of which you have not identified one as viable, are deadends that lead back to the two options - God or chance happenstance.

Identify another option so we can discuss its reasonableness in making sense of origins and how it holds together in logical consistency. Not so easy-peasy, right? 

Here's one possibility that is way more likely: 'prophecy' was written after the event.  This has conforming to the laws of nature and simplicity as strong arguments in its favor.

Easy to say, but which position is more reasonable to believe based on the evidence available? It is not yours. The late date position or argument is based largely on a doubted statement by Irenaeus. 

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 

Is your god an object or a subject?  Tell me again about your 'objective' source for morality...

Okay. My God is revealed as personal, omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, thus objective and the object of our worship.

Do you think slavery is wrong? Why or why not?

What do you mean by slavery?

Sye was a weak debater, IMO, but on the point, do you or Matt have what is necessary to judge the biblical God?

I have said there is all kinds of evidence that backs the biblical claim.  

I am not shifting the burden. I've asked you to go into these "other options." I've asked you to show God is not necessary.

When you propose it is reasonable that chance happenstance is your maker 

And how can prophecy be easily explained without God?

A object or mindless thing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It just is. 

[...] why should I hold the Bible as an authority on morality? 

Because it is reasonable to believe and God is a necessary being for morality. 

There are many things codified, condoned, or otherwise not objected to that we (when not related to the Bible) would consider to be wrong. 

Wrong by God or a human, and what? Wrong by whom and why are they the standard?

I agree that Matt's opponent, Sye, did not present a great defence.

I agree with Matt and Sye that we do begin with presuppositions.

Matt attacks Sye on the claim that God reveals things to us (everyone) in ways that we can be certain. Matt asks, how it works? I claim it works on the impossibility of the contrary, that blind indifferent chance does not have what is necessary to make sense of existence, the universe, morality, absolutes, the uniformity of nature. 

I asked you how it is possible for you to be certain, in a world where God does not exist, about your beginnings, your existence, the existence of the universe, morality? 

I have claimed prophecy is one reasonable and logical justification for God's existence.

I have argued that moralism needs more than moral relativism as its justification. Your subjective feelings or preferences do not explain why something is good, the ought of goodness. 

And there is a moral lesson in the Bible.

1. Those making a claim have the burden to substantiate it.  If they cannot (or refuse), then their claim cannot be dismissed in this alone.

Yes, you have exchanged those God beliefs for other beliefs. Atheism is not a void. Your worldview now BELIEVES that "methodological naturalism" explains or is the likely explanation of origins. It believes that humanism or human thought is the authority on origins and evolution (to some extent).

Atheism is a justifiable position given the inability of believers to bear the burden of their god claims - not an irrational presupposition akin to those preferred by some religious dogmatists.

Justifiable position on what? You presuppose more than the believer does. You presuppose that chance happenstance is able to do something.

What options outside of the god/chance are you willing to entertain? 

Either God, chance, or illusion. What is more reasonable?

Skepticism in God is usually part of the atheists repertoire. Skepticism does not answer the worldview questions but pleads ignorance. Atheism does. Worldviews attempt to answer four or five ultimate questions. Skepticism does not. I don't think skepticism is a worldview. You can't live by 'I don't know.' Skepticism as a worldview can only say, 'I don't know' and plead ignorance. Skeptics live as if they do know. They live inconsistently with 'I don't know.' You don't know yet your comments speak of knowing. Skeptics usually reject God. You reject the biblical God. How can  an 'I don't know' skeptic believe the Bible is not true?   

I haven't "adopted naturalistic means" to explain origins.

You deny God. Without God what do you have left??? 

I'm not speaking of how to interpret the Bible.

But you did speculate. You said there are perhaps thousands of ways to interpret the Bible. I explained that the Bible speaks of a correct way. It does not depend on a private interpretation. It depends on gleaming the right interpretation for God's word to make perfect sense. 

You are wrong. Tell me of anyone you know who can predict hundreds and hundreds of specific prophecies that find fulfillment in one Person and one nation. Show me how the unity of over 1500 years of time and over forty different authors can predict so much about history that is fulfilled in AD 70. Explain away the OT canon as written after AD 70. That is not what recorded history reveals as reasonable to believe. Show me how it is more reasonable to believe even one NT canon writing was written after the fall of Jerusalem. Your view is the weak evidence, not mine. 

Worldviews weigh evidence. Do you have no belief about God? You have all kinds of beliefs about God. 

BS. I did not say they were the only two. What does skepticism have to do with the two main paradigms? You have stated that you fit into one of those two camps - you identify with atheism. That means you look to and have adopted naturalistic means in explaining origins.  

One side can and does make better sense of life's ultimate questions/origins. 

Yet you stick your nose into it then back away. It is not that we always agree as believers, it is whether there is a correct interpretation that can be demonstrated from the text, not from what one reads into the text. 

How did the Bereans check to see if what Paul said was true? They went to Scripture. You should do the same when you are speaking of how to interpret it.

It may not be the principle you first started with but it is the starting principle of a worldview, the foundation on which you build a worldview, the cornerstone or core that everything rests upon.

You sift everything through that paradigm. You can start in two main ways - God/gods or chance happenstance.

And to have that skepticism you have to have beliefs about God or else you would not be skeptical and would be building on total ignorance. It is hard to be skeptical of nothing or alternatively everything.

I think atheism can be viewed as silence and the various god beliefs as particular pitches. Not believing C to be the correct pitch does not mean F# is. It means you need to study the music a little more (in silence).

Silence? You are not silent. You fight against Christianity and religious beliefs. You have to believe something about them to voice an opinion against them. And you have lots of opinions. 

You think there is no correct interpretation. Try debating that, will you. Put your money where your mouth is. 

Here is your starting principle, you does not believe in God or gods. 

Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong?  It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...

If you think you can make a case that I misinterpret Scripture I invite you to demonstrate I have done so. I remind you that your previous attempt was pathetic. [...] IMO, the reason you won our debate on the subject of prophecy is because of the mindset of the judges. You have many like-minded people who cannot divorce reason from herd-mentality and group-think, in spite of the arguments put forth.

Subjective interpretation! Says you. Do you believe there is no objective interpretation of the Bible? 

Objective evidence? What scientist was there at the beginning?

Two parents allow their kid to stay home alone for the first time. They tell him "If you make a mess, clean it up". The having to clean up is conditional.  The parents are not advocating making a mess. I'm sure they prefer he doesn't. But they are providing the solution, or the next step IF he should make a mess.

It is obvious to those who use their brains that one interpretation is confirmed by the pages of Scripture. I challenged you to back up your position that Scripture is not its own interpreter. 

I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).

They are belief systems. They are not formed in a vacuum. You have to believe something to be an atheist. Your belief negates some other belief. 

If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.

What kind of atheist are you?

Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.

Dogmatic of you.

So what, to that statement?

"Fossils, the preserved remains of animal and plant life, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks. Of the sedimentary rocks, most fossils occur in shale, limestone and sandstone." 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/rock-cycle/

"Sedimentary and igneous rocks began as something other than rock. Sedimentary rocks were originally sediments, which were compacted under high pressure. Igneous rocks formed when liquid magma or lava—magma that has emerged onto the surface of the Earth—cooled and hardened. A metamorphic rock, on the other hand, began as a rock—either a sedimentary, igneous, or even a different sort of metamorphic rock. Then, due to various conditions within the Earth, the existing rock was changed into a new kind of metamorphic rock."

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/metamorphic-rocks/?utm_source=BibblioRCM_Row

I said I favour a young earth interpretation of Scripture just as I favour full Preterism. If you can convince me long periods of time is reasonable to believe go ahead. You are not my authority, Scripture is, so convince me from Scripture that I wrongly interpret it. 

What we are mainly debating is which position, Christianity or atheism is reasonable to believe. 

If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 

Do you actaully hold to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator? No, you use it to lampoon Christianity. Behind this label use, you are an atheist. That is your true belief. Are you still a soft atheist (agnostic) or are you now a hard atheist? 

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers. 

That is not what I said. I said, "a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers." I said the Flood CAUSED the rock layers to form, not organize rocks into layers. 

I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.

Not in the case of origins. We can watch and test natural processes in the present and near past, but not in the distant past. Origins spose the same problem for both of us. You have to construct a model and then test its feasibility. 

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.

You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 

Scripture needs to be consistent with scripture? Nice tautology. "Reasonable" is the least relevant word in that sentence.

Not at all. When you are interpreting a passage of Scripture it is good to compare it with other Scripture to find the meaning.

I  find your faith amusing too! Pastafarianism is downright absurd and I would debate you on its absurdity if I cared or wanted to do the research on it. From the little I have read I do not find it reasonable enough to spend much time on. It is an adjusted copy-cat with major flaws, IMO. It does not interest me as a credible worldview. I think it is a shield or tag you hide behind that masks your agnosticism or soft atheism.  

Is it unreasonable to believe that a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers and fossil record quickly, rather than gradually? 

Origins can be explained in more than one way yet it is only naturalism that is examined or considered valid. Although the claims can be tested they cannot be verified through observation of the occurrence.

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.

You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 

Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution.

You are creating a narrative again, that what I believe is false, based on your assertion.

There is only certainty in origins if God has revealed. God is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty. 

Well...since over half of registered voters are going to be voting for Trump in November [...]

Do you not understand what happened in Nazi Germany and in oh so many dictatorships is the same thing taking place in your country through a massive bombardment of dis and misinformation? You are feeding off a bunch of lies under the guise of the Democrat Party. Do you know of the coming coup if Trump wins? They are already prepping you.

See here, The coming Coup

You ASSUME that rational or reasoning faith cannot be a justified true belief (knowledge). Says you. Why are you the arbitrator of what is knowledge? 

I continually argue that the Bible God is knowable and knowledge in Him is reasonable, what He says is justifiable. I gave you the opportunity to argue against this knowledge in the form of prophecy and how reasonable it is to believe. You declined. So, how can I demonstrate to you something you are not willing to explore or reason against?

You continually say, as does ludofl3x, I don't know, I don't care. Thus you have created the impass, not me. I am willing to discuss whether what I believe is reasonable and whether I have knowledge of such a God.

Prove it.

You come from a position of "I don't know."  You have demonstrated you do not have what is necessary to know. You can point to many people, scientists, who propose a reason for origins, but their opinions are conflicted. The origin of the universe is built on models that best fit the data available but there are many anomalies within these models. So, there is no surety as to what actually happened. 

For surety of origins, we are not necessary beings. We were not there. We assume that the present is the key to the past because that is our gauge to the distant past. We look at data and interpret it from the present (the past four hundred years). It is a relatively recent 'science.' Human history and records is a relatively short time frame in a supposed 14 billion year universe, if that is your paradigm you build from. 

What would be necessary? The being would have to be a personal being who was there and transcends the time, space, matter universe, who created the universe and understands it in all it aspects. If that being has revealed we can know. Now if that being was omniscient but changing could we then know? How would we be sure that being was not lying to us? Thus, that being would have to be immutable, without change. That being would have to be omnibenevolent or else there would be no guarantee that the being would lie. 

We both work from core presuppositions.

An omniscient, immutable Being who has revealed is necessary. 

Who knows the truth about origins? 

Knowing the truth about origins is not possible unless God exists and has revealed. Throughout human history the speculation is still going on and strong.

Which conscious  mind(s)? Yours? Who are you referring to? You admitted you don't know.  So, who does? If they do, why don't you trust them as truthful? Remember, you admit that you do not know. 

Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?

Because you are dismissing what is necessary for truth. That is why you should care. Chance is not necessary or sufficient. It explains nothing. 

Okay, so is that a no? 

Do you agree that prophecy is reasonable to believe?

I agree, Skep, you can have reasoned conclusions, that can be wrong, but are they more reasonable than the alternative? 

True enough. I just thought you might like the challenge. You did accept it twice before as a devil's advocate. 

I'm not a fan of the wording. In particular, "reasonable" isn't clear enough for my liking. Perhaps 'Prophecy provides sufficient evidence for the Biblical God' or 'The Biblical God is rationally justified by prophecy.

The whole purpose or aim of highlighting reason is to contrast the two opposite positions against each other as to which gives better and more logical explanations.

All unfulfilled biblical prophecy has its fulfillment by AD70. 

That could be another heading for a debate. I like it. 

Jerusalem, and the temple, is key to understanding prophecy and the transition between the OT and NT. Is that reasonable to believe? I was originally going to challenge a Christian who holds to a futuristic view of prophecy (such as Dispensationalism, Millennialism, Amillennialism, etc) to showcase which view is more reasonable.  

Title: Prophecy is a reasonable evidence for the Biblical God.

What has been demonstrated is that people find a particular paradigm reasonable, but it is not from its starting of the chain of events or the ability for the apparatus (chance happenstance) to do so.

Chance is your master. 

The difference is your and my starting point - God or chance. 

...that does not mean a giant leap from a whale to a pig that can be traced through the fossil record.

Your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of life's most important questions.

Thus, you hide from God. 

In your case, a shaky foundation that you have no justification for. My belief is so much more reasonable and logicL than yours because of where I start. 

No only one person, but around 40 different authors all centering on different aspects of the Messiah or the coming judgment of Israel.

It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.

No, it is not more reasonable. It would be a great topic of debate to highlight the reasons for each side of the issue, similar to our debates of the past on Matthew 24 and Revelation. 

How is 'kinds' in conflict with 'facts.' Whose facts? Why are they facts? 

God gives us a reason for the first cause, the origin or start of the universe. Thus, the Christian worldview has an adequate explanation and can make sense of origins. It has what is necessary. Do not tell me it does not have what is necessary or rational unless you can back it up reasonably and logically. Go ahead. 

I'm curious how you reject some evidence and accept other. Would it be incorrect to describe your priority as presuppositions and not the evidence? 

I reject it based on the starting point, the core presuppositions are not logical or reasonable. 

Uniformitarianism uses the layers of rock as support of the dating process. The fossil type and rock layer they are found in are also used in determining age also. Then the current rates and processes of soil deposits, erosion, and decay that build up and tear down these layers are assumed to be the same or similar to those of the past. Then there is the problem of how millions and billions of fossils are deposited in these rock layers by Uniformitarianisn, a slow gradual process. Rather, millions and billions of fossils point to catastrophism.

Finally, without God, what is the cause of consistency and uniformity of nature in a chance happenstance universe? How does chance happenstance sustain anything? Why would it do so? Why do laws exist for uniformity? To study how, the why is important. 

By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. 

Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings. As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.
The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years. Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation.

"I don't follow how that is explained?" is a question. I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation since ...

...which you are now attempting to take out of context.  You originally stated this question suggesting I had labeled your reasoning broken without explaining it (which I did...more than once).  You were not asking me to provide a naturalistic explanation in this part of our conversation.  I don't mind you asking questions of me, Peter, but I very much dislike the pretense I've avoided a question you didn't ask.

Here is your OP and that context:

ME: "Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable."

YOU: "Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply. Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?  At the very least, we should be able to agree there is some evidence supporting Uniformitarianism. I don't understand what you mean by 'similar and recognizable ingredients' - are you suggesting there was dissimilar and unrecognizable ingredients? If so, where did they go?"

ME: "I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation." 

YOU: "Do you understand that hydrogen and oxygen, neither of which are wet, combine to make water, which IS wet? When you suggest the absence of consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) in the individual ingredients of life as a defeator for consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) being natural, you are relying on the composition fallacy. It's simply a fact that the whole sometimes has attributes beyond that of the parts. You're reasoning is flawed."

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

I don't agree to that dichotomy. It could be  the cause of life was absent reason/rationality, or unreasoning/illogical, or with reason/rationality. Not one of these options disallows our reasoning and logical abilities.  Hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, but they make water which is wet.  Must the origin of water be wet? No, of course not.

You are making a mistake in thinking the whole must have the same attributes as the parts (or the origin of the parts).

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

Same composition fallacy hard at work here. 

Deflection. When you charge my thinking as fallacious please explain your reasoning, not just the label. I'm so tired of people doing that. 

I explain why your reasoning was bad in the underlined above.

I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation. 

Where is your naturalistic explanation for Uniformitarianism or even how the universe began to exist and what caused that beginning? How does mentioning your parents, grandparents, etc., provide evidence for the way the universe is formed or Uniformitarianism explaining fossils, that the recent past and human history is the key to the distant past? They are not an answer to those problems.