Frankly, the onus is on the secularists to come up with those evidences.
This is a curiously revealing answer.
Isn’t the onus on BOTH of us to support our theories?
Scientists are supporting theirs with evidence, math and physics.
Creationists: do not support their hypotheses with anything other than, God exists because I say so.
But the mythology you summarized does not even, in my opinion, constitute theism. These “gods” are "creatures" of time, whereas God is eternal and outside time. These “gods” can be overthrown, whereas no one can oppose God.
Onus on you to exert the same standard of required evidence for your god as you do for old earth. Who says no one can overthrow your god? More evidence is required than saying theology falls apart if there is no god.
What would you consider acceptable evidence of such a collision?
Something other than the fact that the evolutionary model is falsified if such collision didn't happen might be a start.
Whatever evidence you expect him to provide for collisions, you need to provide for flood.
Aesthete said:
Earth: According to the nebular model, the earth is too close to the sun for water to have condensed. For this reason, secular scientists theorize that the earth acquired it water via comet strikes. Besides the lack of evidence of this hypothesis, ...
What would you consider acceptable evidence for it?
Acceptable evidence for earth’s water coming from extraterrestrial bombardment? I don’t believe it exists. It’s a really wild idea, quite frankly, but is necessary to support the secular model.
Same standard.
God is a wild idea. YOu need to do better - by your own standard.
Check out the
Nice model and the
Grand tack hypothesis for the early Solar System. Both of them posit outer planets having moved from their original orbits.
My point exactly. They cannot have formed in their present locations. So wild ideas are needed to explain how they got there.
So you present the wild idea of a god. Without a jot or tittle of math to back it up.
We weren't around to watch any of this happening, so we have to work backward from what we see in the present day.
Only if you ignore God as the explanation.
Ignoring the wild idea that has no supporting evidence?
Aesthete said:
The numbers don't work - the amount of heat on Io cannot be explained by this.
The numbers for your god don’t work. You must abandon the idea.
Did you even read the link? It correctly explains that the faster than light expansion is an optical illusion and not an actual expansion of the stellar eruption debris.
My bad.
“My bad”?
Why are you not okay with scientists saying this?
That's not all I have to say about the speed of light, though.
Indeed. Science is 1000x better at delivering on this than you are, though.
I don’t say this to be snarky, either. I say this to point out that BY YOUR STANDARDS, creationism is not plausible.
Aesthete, you say over and over again that science needs to fill its gaps (science agrees… and continues to do so), and then you gleefully assert, “but I don’t have to!” and conclude that you have reached a rational understanding of truth.
Your own posts confirm that you believe what you believe
in the absence of rationality.
So a couple of paths become apparent.
- You admit that your position is not rational, and you don’t care,
- You continue to assert your position is rational even though your own words disprove it
- I guess we could add, you decide that you do prefer rational to fanciful and you abandon YEC, but that is not required.
But in any case, it is obvious that your claims that science is irrational are inaccurate.
But here’s the thing that I think about when I see the irrational positions of theists who want to “disprove science” as you are doing. It’s that there is nothing useful to be gained from religion. Everything useful that we have that contributes to the health and welfare of humans is based on science and the methods that you claim are not needed.
No one builds a bridge without reliable, repeatable, predictable scientific fundamentals used in reliable methodologies.
No one gets in an airplane. No one uses a phone. No gets a heart transplant. No one uses dialysis. No one solves a crime. No one puts up garden vegetables in a Ball Jar. No one builds an engine. No one predicts the weather.
Your world relies on the whims of a super-being that doesn’t care about reliability, and has, by your own testimony, violated reliability over and over again just to fool you. You don’t even know if gravity will continue working tomorrow, or if the sun will suddenly stand still in the sky, or if zombies will rise from their graves.
Your world is utterly unreliable.
Which maybe goes well with the admonition to sell everything you own and wander the streets begging and praising god. (Do you do that? How do you get computer access?)
The beauty of science is that it creates a way for humans to
predict what will happen and plan for it. And see observations that verify the reliability of their predictions.
And you say so yourself multiple times in this thread.
When you are asked what evidence you would accept, you say, ‘something more than what you showed.’ You want more evidence in order to believe something is true.
…even while what they showed is orders of magnitude more than what you showed about what you already believe is true.
So be honest with us.
Be honest with yourself and your god.
Show us your evidence. Your papers on how god DOES work. Or abandon your claim that science can’t be true because we haven’t shown you enough. Use the same standard. Your god is NOT TRUE until you prove it. So you can’t use that as your explanation until you can prove it to a greater degree than science has proved its hypotheses.