Show me where I'm wrong, or committing any fallacy.
I'll have to spend some time on it. It might be solved by me just reading more of your posts so I get what you're saying a bit better.
We have evidence that is inconsistent with determinacy.
Physical evidence? Or philosophical?
We both agree that science here is blind.
I'm not sure I would say that science is blind. It's a tool wielded by people, so in that sense it might be blind, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.
There's no such thing as science that isn't also philosophy.
I always thought that this cartoon was incomplete:
I hope you agree that we have no evidence that Eden ever existed.
The Bible.
We don't have any evidence that God created Adam and Eve fully grown and mature either.
That is what scripture teaches.
Please explain, and I'm being genuine.
The problem is that you don't have a scientific approach to this subject. If you believe that God made the fossils
in situ, is a physical model for their formation going to change your mind?
My position is that it's not worth arguing about the story that they're telling us from their measurements, but that it is worth arguing whether that story is true. And they have no leg to stand on when the discussion goes this way. It's entirely a matter of interpretation, as to whether the story they're saying is written in the rocks and in the stars, is actually true. And there's no PhDs in this interpretive domain. All our views are of equal authority. My view is that the story is fantastically improbable, and patently so. And again my opponents have no leg to stand on in retort. There's nothing they can do to argue that it's more likely than it appears, because the improbability is elemental to the story they're telling us is written in the rocks and in the stars. It's almost as if it's by design, ironically, that it's so improbable that we can't honestly believe it's a nonfiction account. What would punch through this otherwise basically impenetrable fortress of improbability, would be something like God, a nonlocal hidden variable pulling strings.
I suddenly feel great sympathy for the Darwinist who has to argue with you.
I'm not an expert, so at some point I have to yield to experts where experts already exist.
No, you don't.
To operate under the scientific model, you are only required to excise a belief when it has been proven physically impossible.
But if I am mistaken in thinking that their views weigh on theology but they really don't, then it's my duty to sort out that problem myself, and if I try to argue that they are overstepping geology, and I am wrong about that, then there must be a coherent explanation that resolves the apparent conflict, that is all on my side. My personal answer to this, is to seek a common ground between a plain reading of Genesis, with a plain reading of nature. I trust the PhDs in the right domain to tell me the plain reading of nature, and compare that with the plain reading of Genesis. The solution that's still working for me, is that the story written in nature is of the fantasy genre. Which is perfectly balanced with what most who believe that story, tell me is also the nature of the plain reading of Genesis. We both believe in apparently fantasy, so the question is, which one is more believable. And that's a question of faith, which is unsurprising and comfortable for us Christians, though it could be uncomfortable for atheists to realize.
The problem I sense in this is that you're compartmentalizing. And I'd say that your idea on the origin of fossils is a symptom of it.
If a geologist tells you that a rock is millions of years old, that is in conflict with the Bible. My approach would be to test both the geologist and the Bible. You seem to want to keep them separate.
I did that. That's where I start.
That's the spirit.
Being dismissed does mean that you're not going to advance your ideas.
Science isn't about advancing ideas. It's about throwing them out when they've been proved to be impossible.
Please inform me of the evidence that you think is inconsistent with fossils being "millions of years" old.
Original biological material.
When I went through university, I was taught that all fossils were entirely permineralized — that is, all of the creature had been replaced with rocks. That was 20 years ago and has been utterly overturned. It was probably obvious even at the time, but the old-age mindset could not conceive of organics lasting so long.
The best way, the only way, according to the story science is telling us, is that you don't generate heat at all, that all the heat that's ever going to be, already exists somewhere, in another form perhaps (fuel for example).
So the best way to generate heat is for God to create it ex nihilo. But if you need a ton of heat, and a very large heat density, I would say some form of either nuclear fusion, or if possible annihilating antimatter and matter?
What do you think?
I should have phrased the question as: What is the most efficient way to heat things?
Imagine a cold day and you want to warm your hands. You could light a fire. You could blow air into them. You could put gloves on. You could rub them together.
Which one of those would be the most efficient method — ie, the method that converts the greatest proportion of the energy expended into heat in the hands?
Lighting a fire might seem like the most helpful option, but the energy budget (collecting fuel, arranging the burn, heat energy lost to the environment) makes it an inefficient hand warmer. Something in the order of 1 percent of the heat generated would go to that specific task.
You could blow on your hands, but that's putting little actual heat into your hands. In fact it's doing a poor job of what gloves do in that it reduces the rate of heat transfer from your hands to the environment.
As you might have guessed, rubbing your hands together is the most efficient way to generate heat in them. A little energy lost to sound, but something like 80 percent of that kinetic energy is going into hand heating.
Same thing with melting a planet. The most efficient means of melting it is to rub it against itself.
Take two bricks and rub them together. You get hot bricks pretty quick. Put more pressure on them and you can create lots of sparks.
Now imagine those two bricks 100km below the Earth's surface. The pressure is so intense even at that relatively shallow depth that were the bricks to move at all against each other, they would melt.
So to melt a planet, move all of its internals relative to each other. Pressure and friction will do the rest.
Now you're asking how all that movement could be achieved, right? Easy. Right now the gravitational center of the Earth is, well, at the center of the Earth.
But, were there to be a big enough hole dug — something akin to an ocean basin would be enough, depending on its profile — the gravitational center would move. Move the center enough and all the rocks start moving relative to each other toward the new gravitational center. Basically, planets want to be round. If you put a big enough hole in one, it will morph back into a sphere.
And this isn't only rocks at a piddly 100km deep. Rocks at the Earth's center would move. At that depth, they don't melt. Because of the insane pressure, they turn into plasma with even the tiniest shake.
Now for the bad news:
This process has actually started with the flood acting upon a planet that was probably entirely rocky (no molten core, no significant radioactivity). The Bible describes the fountains of the deep. They tore up great holes in the Earth (along with hydroplate action).
We are sitting on a planet that is doomed to an end in which the elements will be melted. You can feel the process in action. Every earthquake is a reminder that material inside the planet is moving to a new center. And as it does, it is melting.
The physics of this are undeniable. The conservation of angular momentum as the rotation of the Earth increases is irrefutable evidence that the planet is shrinking. The only way it's shrinking is if the center is increasing in density. At the pressures of the Earth's center, melted rock is more dense than its parent material.
Now, try telling that story to a geologist and watch as his dedication to a godless reality trumps his professed adherence to a scientific philosophy.
Now the good news:
The truth is that only by starting with a commitment to our Creator can we ever hope to arrive at a clear understanding of what the rocks are telling us.
The Bible allows us insights that others will deny regardless of the evidence, but above all, Jesus has promised us that despite the rapidly approaching end, He has it all under control.