Replies

Interesting points. (Theologically, that is.) Let me ask you a few things:

First, what non-documentary evidence do you have that there is such a thing as a God?

Second, what non-documentary evidence do you have that, if there is a God, that it is Yahweh/Jehovah and not, for example, Vishnu or Oden?

Third, what evidence do you have that the Muslim interpretation of things, in which the Koran was given to the Jews and Christians who then perverted it into the current forms of those religions?

Fourth, on your believe in the Bible; if the Bible said something that you knew, from non-biblical sources, for an absolute fact was not true, would you believe the Bible? For example, if the Bible said "all cats reproduce by laying eggs out of which kittens hatch," would you believe cats lay eggs or would you conclude that the text is wrong and believe what you know to be the truth?

I am genuinely interested in this religious mind-set that you seem to have, so my questions are sincere. I hope you will respond in a likewise manner.

I think it is worthwhile to consider one's epistemology when approaching things such as this before having a dialogue. When people come together on this subject it is important to understand how each person "knows" anything. If the only way we can truly know things comes from a naturalist perspective (those things can be tested with the 5 senses) then that will ultimately determine the value we place on the "evidence" that a non-naturalist offers.

I think that if a person can demonstrate that there are such things (not necessarily God) that exist apart from being placed under a "microscope" of sorts, then it can set the stage for a more productive discussion on the questions you have asked.

Something the naturalist should consider is the following:

What kind of physical test can they do to prove that only the things that can be observed with the 5 senses truly exist? Is that even possible? If it isn't possible to show this epistemology from a naturalist perspective wouldn't that render naturalism self-refuting?

You offered 2 types of questions. The first question was from a naturalist perspective. The others were from a cultural/Biblical validity standpoint.

Anyway, that was just a few thoughts I had.... for what it's worth. (probably not worth much :) ) Often times people don't take the time to first understand the other person's epistemology. When they don't do that they end up just spinning their wheels talking past each other on the "proof" that the other person discounts out of hand.

By the way, I am not assuming you to be a naturalist. Only your first question would I argue was from a naturalists perspective.

- RetroFit

" what non-documentary evidence do you have that there is such a thing as a God?"

A challenging question when you examine it foundationally. One has to agree on just what a god is, and also what is or is not 'documentary.'

The evidence that best lends itself to abstraction is based in an understanding of the area of applied mathematics known as "probability and statistics." Back in the mid 90's Michael Drosnan, an unbeliever of Jewish descent, wrote an assuming and self indulgant book entitled "The Bible Code." Much of the book was downright silly, such as attempting to predict the future by information extracted from equidistant letter sequences found in the Masoretic text. The value of the book in a real-world sense is it's explanation of the mechanics of equidistant letter sequences themselves, rather than his 'messages.'

Many jumped on this phenomenon from both sides of the aisle. Hebrew scholars produced many coherent sentences, many of which repeated 3 or more times in succession, while others claimed to have 'debunked' the phenomenon by finding similar 'codes' in other hebrew texts. Since the publication of the original book, much genuine study has progressed, and a recent book, "The Bible Code Bombshell," presents presents powerful statistical evidence, consisting of long, coherent ELS sentences, pertinant to the topic of the surface text wherein they are contained. While some short ELS sentences can be found in some other hebrew texts, they lact the surface text pertinance, and also fail the statistical probability tests that many of the biblical ELS sentences pass with flying colors. To get a proper understanding of the issues, one must read the book, but the evidence is conclusive: The Bible had to have been written by an entity that had full control of the formation of language itself, and accurate knowledge of the future.

Does that entity fit your definition of "God?" You can lead a horse to water...

The evidence is all around, not only in what you see, but in your own very self-awareness by which you may see. You're playing dumb: all know the truth deep down, and suppress it because you know what it implies, just as those who taught them did.

Evolution is not provable. Neither is Creation. But a substantial body of evidence - evidence which, I must add, is commonly interpreted with the conclusion as a premise - points to a young earth:

* The sun's source of energy. The solar "wind" constantly streaming into space from the rotating surface "exert a dragging effect that is strong enough to stop the rotation of the convecitve zone in only one million years" (Howard 1975). Time to question the premise: millions of years...
* Origin of comets. Halley's comet loses approx 1 percent of its mass each time its orbit nears the sun. It should have a life of a few thousand years. Where do all these comets come from? J.H. Oorts rather absurd notion (for which there is no proof) of a comet cloud "out there" is necessariy to reconcile this problem with the millions of years required for Lyell's long geological ages required for evolution. It's far simpler to question the premise.
* Meteorites and tektites. According to research by Petterson, approximately ten-millionths of an inch per year of material from outerspace blankets the earth. Extrapolating this number over five billion years, Apollo should have sank into the surface of the moon. Instead, the dust was, according to Neil Armstrong, "maybe an eighth of an inch" - not even remotely close to Isaac Asimov's dire prediction.
* Earth's decaying magnetic field. This field changes at a constant rate. Polarity reversal have occurred. In 1989 two respected paleomagnetists, R. Coe, and M. Prévot, reported evidence in two thin lava flows at the same location of two rapid reversals in a short period of time - obviously from a global catastophe.
* Stalactites. Any cavern tour guide will assure tourists that stalactites in the cave took "millions of years" to form to two or three feet from water working on the limestone. Yet, two-foot-long stalactites can be seen in abandoned bored tunnels, such as one in London in disuse for about half-a-century.
* Polonium radiohalo signatures in basal granite. Dr. Robert Gentry introduced this research in 1974. Polonium has a half-life of about 3 minutes, and is one of the fourteen stages of the uranium 238 decay process. White-hot magma takes far longer than that to cool. Now, only daughter products (lead-206) are found in the central inclusion of these decay signatures. Yet, we are told that A) the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and B) that the half-life of uranium 238 is 4.51 billion years. Thus, where is the undecayed half of the parent U-238 product that should still be present? Or was it, in fact, created by fiat with polonium, not uranium?
(Source: Taylor, Ian T. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Minneapolis: TFE Publishing. Fourth Edition, Mar. 2001. pp. 329-336.)

Both evolution and creation are accepted on faith, the evolutionist's protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Constancy of rates is accepted on faith because in our short lives they are not empiracally provable (and the evolutionist would not be pleased with what little evidence is available). Only one theory, however, is tenable when we let the facts drive the conclusion and not vice-versa.