God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[Epimethean]

The sources would be very instructive, I agree.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just went over you newest bit of lolbait. More creation journals and a link to an apologetic website. Still not evidence, no matter how many times you post it. Lucent, I don't know if you glossed over the part of my post where I explained to you that showing any position that science has taken on any subject to be in error does not constitute evidence for your own "theory". Again, you must make your case. Here, let's try a little experiment.

Every position reached by science is incorrect. Now, provide evidence that your position is correct.

Sources Epi...I've got a link to his "sources" right here. Their ability to be instructive is a subject in dispute..lol.
http://www.biblegateway.com/

[lucent]

Your intellectual dishonesty is showing yet again. You have a poor memory as to what claims you have made.

"Let me be clear here. I do not, and cannot argue against a deist's god. Even a god who, from deep antiquity, engaged in a single creative motion that inevitably led to everything that we see around us. This is a powerful god."

So you have conceded the point that a powerful God could have created the Universe. What you're denying is that that God was my God, and you stated the reasons you don't believe it is my God, which were that evolution is true, the Universe is very old, and the flood didn't happen. These are your definitive claims, and you demanded evidence to the contrary:

"There is no amount of "interpretation" that will change this. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. That's what you need, because that's what you're dealing with here. Not some vague argument of questionable composition or terms. Cold, hard, physical evidence"

So I've started to present this evidence and not only do you dismiss it all out of hand on false pretenses, but you actually state that presenting such evidence doesn't prove anything. Even though you had just asked me to present such evidence. Your arguments and rationale have become increasingly schitzophrenic, and it's become clear you have no actual standard for evidence except this: that it already agrees with your conclusions.

.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've conceded that I have no argument from evidence against a god of the gaps. That's as far as that goes.

I haven't dismissed any evidence yet. I've been reminding you that you need to present it. Creation journals are garbage, there's really nothing else I can say about that. I will remind you, again, that you need to present evidence for your case, not that the other guys are wrong. As I've already explained, we could both be wrong. In fact I even made the statement, for the purpose of this conversation, that all scientific consensus on the subject is in error. Now present your case.

I don't want to hear another word about how the other guys are wrong. I want you to show me why you are correct. Can I be any more clear? If all you have is "these guys are wrong and so it defaults to goddidit" you have jack shit.

[Jackalope]

Appearance of Venus

The high surface temperatures along with its dense atmosphere should have long ago eroded its surface features if the planet is 4 billion years old. The features that we see therefore represent a young planet. Richard A Kerr wrote in "Venus is looking too pristine" from Science magazine that "The Venus flybys have shown that planet to be young in the extreme. When they read the geological clock that tells them how old the Benusian surface is, they find a planet on the brink of adolescence."

Quote mining. The surface of Venus appears geologically young, because it is geologically young - despite the planet being much older. Quite unsurprising, since it's been recently very geologically active.

Neither can Mars be billions of years old, because in only a few thousand years, the type of harsh dust storms occuring on Mars would have eroded away its many craters and volcanoes. Yet,they're still there. This long term erosion should have also obliterated the strong color differences on the surface of Mars, but obviously this hasn't happened.

Show your work. Naked assertions are unconvincing.

Isotopes known as U-236 and TH-230 which are short-lived were found in lunar materials. If the moon were billions of years old, these isotopes would have long since decayed and would be absent from the samples. Since they were in relative abundence, it showed the age of the moon has to be measured in thousands, not billions of years.

U-236 and TH-230 are naturally replenished as they are both products of U-238 decay.

All of the rest of your claims are debunked elsewhere (talkorigins, evolutionwiki.org, etc). Try harder next time.

[lucent]

Creation scientists are real scientists with advanced degrees, and most of them are published, not that this is the qualification for being a scientist. So your dismissal of creation journals as garbage just shows your ignorance.

If mainstream science is wrong and the Universe is young, evolution didn't happen and there was a global flood, that's pretty compelling evidence that the bible is true, isn't it? What am I supposed to be proving when all the facts agree with me? You'd have to be an ignoramous to deny the bible at this point.

You cry out for evidence like a broken record, but you dismiss all evidence from logic and philosophy, and now science doesn't matter either. So, we can talk about history and archaelogy and other subjects, and soon you will dismiss all of that as irrelevent too. Before we continue with this charade, I just want you to answer one question:

What evidence, besides God knocking on your door and shaking your hand, will you even consider? Are there any doors in your mind which aren't bolted shut?

I've conceded that I have no argument from evidence against a god of the gaps. That's as far as that goes.

I haven't dismissed any evidence yet. I've been reminding you that you need to present it. Creation journals are garbage, there's really nothing else I can say about that. I will remind you, again, that you need to present evidence for your case, not that the other guys are wrong. As I've already explained, we could both be wrong. In fact I even made the statement, for the purpose of this conversation, that all scientific consensus on the subject is in error. Now present your case.

I don't want to hear another word about how the other guys are wrong. I want you to show me why you are correct. Can I be any more clear? If all you have is "these guys are wrong and so it defaults to goddidit" you have jack shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Creation journals are garbage, for the billionth time.

[Minimalist]

Creation scientists are real scientists with advanced degrees,

Creation scientists are bible thumping shitheads.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

[lucent]

Because if you say it over and over it must be true. This is what is garbage.

Creation journals are garbage, for the billionth time.

---

If you had bothered to actually read it:

"It would be wrong to infer from this list that all creationists have suspicious credentials. In fact, a good number of prominent creationists have legitimate -- even noteworthy -- doctoral degrees in scientific fields."

Creation scientists are real scientists with advanced degrees,

Creation scientists are bible thumping shitheads.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

[The Grand Nudger]

It has nothing to do with me. This has already been explained to you. Do you actually have any evidence?

Credentials are jack shit. It's the evidence that counts. That's science. Advanced degrees in no way shield one from the innumerable failings that come along with being a human being as regards our thought process. That is precisely why strict adherence to the scientific method is so necessary. Things aren't "true" because smart people say so. They are "true" because they can be demonstrated.