Bear in mind, you're talking to some dude on a football website saying he has the answer ... against millions of others who make the same claim.

But if this dude makes a statement of undeniable fact, then you go with the fact, not what the dude said.

This jungle-warfare of conflicting ideas in the world -- between atheists, theists, different religions, and all the major contradictions among Christian groups, particularly everyone saying there is no way of figuring out who is accurate .... God anticipated these conditions.

God made a way to navigate all this. And it is not "blind faith". It is entirely based on evidence and reasoning. Why? Because God made us in his likeness so that he can have full relationship with us as sons and daughters. For example, I have a tremendous relationship with my dog - but there is a dimension of relationship that I can only have with another human being: conversation, sharing of deep ideas, sharing of similar emotions etc. For this reason, God in the beginning created us in his likeness, with the motive of us being in loving relationship with this God.

A characteristic of this God is that he gives reasons for why he does things. For example, if I talk to you for 60 minutes, and my reason-for-doing-things is given at the 10 minute mark - and an example of how I do things is given at the 50 minute mark of the conversation. But if we slice and dice that conversation into isolated random sentences, and do not see the entire 60 minute conversation as one unity, that is how there are so many different interpretations in Christianity.

I address your core question: why not say there is insufficient scientific evidence? I speak as someone with a degree in a science-mathematics-related field more in the industrial manufacturing area. A smart craftsman knows the extent of what his tool-of-trade can, and cannot, do. It is a daft idiot who selects the wrong tool for the job e.g. selecting a chainsaw to measure temperature.

An idiot-scientist uses scientific method for a task where science is not designed to test.

In my first science class in high school, we learned what is "scientific method" - where we start with a hypothesis or theory, then we set up an experiment to test that theory. Then, from the repeatable results we draw a conclusion. A good experiment is something that anyone else, with suitable equipment, can repeat the experiment to get hopefully the same results to confirm the conclusion. Thus, scientific method is reliant on something that can be repeated.

Even if something happened thousands of years ago, the repeatability is in the mathematics and physics that does not change over millennia.

But if something only happened once, then science is the wrong too for testing a once-off event.

For a once-off event, the method of legal and witness evidence is used.

(Even forensic science is not testing the once-off event, but using repeatable procedures - such as testing for the presence of blood or DNA - and then extrapolations are made. In other words, forensic science can only test the repeatable part. Then the legal evidence is for the once-off event).

This leads to the conclusion that, for testing the assertion of a once-off Messiah, and a once-off Resurrection, and once-off miracles ... the correct tool for testing that is not science, because all these are not repeating events. Instead, the proper tool is the legal and evidence method.

I have professional training in both science, as well as the legal side.

It happens that much of the proofs in the New Testament are expressed in legal paradigms, e.g. covenant, justification by faith, condemnation (a legal term, not a psychological term) etc.

Hence, where scientific evidence dries up .... the next step is to examine the legal evidence and eyewitness evidence.

You referred also to the divergence of many Christian groups (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), and other non-Christian religions. My premise is: God anticipated all that. And has made a way to navigate through the fog.

Logically, if any of them diverge on core issues, they cannot be saying the same thing. For example, if all other worldwide religions say you stand a good chance of being saved if you do lots of good works ... but the argument of Jesus and his apostles is that you cannot be saved by doing lots of good works ... it means, they're not saying the same thing.

Pssst......

Hey johnny (lowercase) before you do all that can you answer the above?

And the other question of mine you ignored. Did God put all the old stuff in to make it look old or are we not reading it right? Say ice cores for example.

Please, please, please!

OK, I look forward to reading it.

Can I add, however that if you are beginning your "big picture road map" from the baseline of

"Hence, the ultimate decision on Jesus Christ/God has to be based on the content of what Jesus said" is not exactly an honest attempt on your behalf to tackle bias head on now is it?  Why cant the ultimate decision (or at least a part of the decision) be based on lack of scientific evidence of the existence of either God or Jesus? - and no I'm not talking about those vulgar Soviet experiments in the 50s and 60s trying to measure the physical quantity of the soul. 

Also, on what do you base your accuracy of what Jesus actually did say? The official recognised "bible" as designated according to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox one, or the Coptics or the Maronites or (when talking about the prophesies of who/what the Messiah is) the Jews or the Muslims?  Not to mention the billions (seemingly) of Protestant doctrines? By selecting one "source" are you not guilty of practising the same negative bias as you accuse us "sheep" of practising? What ever happened to doing your own research and critical thinking?

Yeah man, I know what you mean.... But there is a reason behind the assumption and I find it pretty fascinating to follow the mental gymnastics that go into some of these things... The flat earthers  are great fun to engage with btw.....  They have literally bent the rules of physics trying to explain the world is flat yet when asked if anyone has a picture of the end of the world they start talking about global conspiracies and the lizard people heheheheheh Ask one of them to talk to you about their concept of "gravity" for instance, you will shit your pants I kid you not :)

Give me some time - this weekend is packed.

I aim to provide a PowerPoint flow chart of key points that are crucial in thinking through this. That's because the decision is reached based on the totality of a massive amount of evidence -- not just back-and-forth of isolated points. It's necessary to see how all the dots join together, rather than solely arguing over each dot. I hope a flowchart will give a big-picture roadmap. That is how I had to satisfy myself of the truth of giving my lifetime to Jesus Christ. (Giving a lifetime to a lie cannot result in a good end-result.)

Regarding the soil mechanics --- my overall direction is to show that a decision about God cannot be made based entirely on Creation vs Evolution. That is because, for any given issue, there are scientific rationale both for and against Creation vs Evolution. Hence, the ultimate decision on Jesus Christ/God has to be based on the content of what Jesus said. And if it is accepted that Jesus is Creator-God, then the New Testament says He was the one through whom Father God created the universe and the world. etc. etc. And if it is accepted that Jesus Christ is all powerful Lord God, then it follows logically that Christ is at least technically capable of creating the world in 6 days. (But if a person flatly denies Christ, for that person, it automatically follows that Creation is ludicrous).

Back to soil mechanics. There is evidence, for and against, that the geological layers in the earth's upper crust can be formed within a matter of hours. During the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State in 1980, the catastrophic mud/earth slides created, within a matter of hours, very similar layers of earth. That shows, scientifically, that under catastrophic conditions, soil layers have been created within a matter of hours.

Does that geological soil-mechanics evidence from the Mount St. Helens eruption prove definitively that the layers of rock formations are caused by the flood at the time of Noah's Ark? Not definitively. But it does offer a plausible scientific example that it is scientifically and geologically possible.

The big-picture where I'm heading is that, for any given issue of Creation vs Evolution there is scientific arguments on both sides. Therefore, for me, there can be no resolution if debating Creation/Evolution in isolation. So we then move to the next issue, which is the message of Jesus Chris and his apostles. And if that is true, we work backwards and see that everything Jesus said is consistent with a 6 day creation - and there is scientific rationale to back up a lot/most of the key issues.

And when certain aspects of the Creation argument have holes which are difficult to explain --- likewise the Evolution side also has holes in their arguments. Given that impasse, people tend to just go with their biases, e.g. a person who flatly denies God will automatically think Creation is bunkum.

Hence, a crucial step in this discussion is to tackle the biases head on.

I'm talking about people who if literally rode a rocket to space would tell you that there was a projection outside the windows to make it look like the earth was a sphere.

Those blokes.

Im uncomfortable lumping everyone into the same basket Muzzie.. Have met some really intelligent blokes (or at least I consider them to be intelligent) who happened to be both extremely educated and quite sincere in their faith yet they had a pretty open and honest  explanation of the juxtaposition of God as a creator of the universe and how it all panned out.... Its WORTH the conversation if nothing else just to find out what the hell the other side thinks... For example, johnsmith(lowercase) mentioned something about soil dynamics as an explanation of proof that geological events can be both violent and rapid thus, I assume, trying to explain the evidently recent birth of the Earth... This clearly disregards something as simple and measurable as continental drift for arguments sake... I wanted to get to the bottom of WHY they pick and choose certain elements of Science and not others..... and more importantly what happens to their core belief once they cannot explain the "evidence" away..... 

@mono / tsf.

This pretty much explains people like (lowercase) johnsmith. https://www.facebook.com/reel/282376408020625

The bloke is 100% correct. No evidence presented about the earth's age would ever change his mind. None.

At the end of the day it's pointless to discuss any real science with blokes like JS.

See Mono this is what I meant. There's no point bringing up things like science because he'll just bat you away with 'his' science.

So I get back to simple stuff. 

JS.

How did all the marsupials get to Australia and why only Australia?

and.....

Assuming a giant flood which replicated million of years of lain down sediment in hours why do we not find human fossils with dinosaur fossils.

In fact why is it the deeper you dig the more simple life becomes? Because if there were a giant flood which laid down everything in order that's a pretty neat trick. I suppose you could say smaller stuff got laid down first but then dinosaur bones should be in the layers above humans. 

BTW where are all the humans that were wiped from the face of the earth after the great flood? Shouldn't they all be in one nice neat layer aLl over the world?

For all your points, I have heard scientific reasoning on both sides. Even if I were to go through, point for point, and provide, say 100 references of scientists who give one side -- you would list 100 references to scientists who say the opposite. At that point, biases will come into play which side you go with.

That is why, my approach to this is to take the same approach as how Jesus and his apostles presented their argument.

Because once the argument -- that Jesus is God and Messiah of both Jews and non-Jews, the next logical step is, such a God is capable of creating the world in a super-natural way.

Whereas, right now, in your thinking, you would not accept any argument of the involvement of an all-powerful God .... not matter how much scientific evidence is given.

One example: if soil mechanics can prove that different layers can be produced within a matter of a few hours under catastrophic water flow -- versus the argument that it took millions of years ... you see that both sides are arguing from science, physics and the engineering discipline of soil-mechanics. You cannot say one side is not scientific, because both sides are offering scientific explanations. But if there are biases in you ... you'll just toss out one side and choose vote for your party by habit.

That is why, for the sequence of presenting the ideas, I want to follow the exact sequence that Jesus and the apostles presented their argument.

Oh yeah I was going to get to that. Simply not enough time if the flood happened 4000 years ago.

This is why I'm trying to establish what (lowercase) JS believes. Once I understand what he believes to be true we can move on to asking about those beliefs.

Like I said some of these blokes say will ice cores that go back 10s of thousands of years were put there by God to either (a) test your faith or (b) make the earth look older than it is. (Unsure of the reasoning of (b) though.)

An even simpler question would be, if the worlds re-re population after the flood ALL fell onto Sham, Ham and the other son of Noah whose name I forget now, how did three lads from one farther manage to "create" a global population of white, brown, black, Asian peoples? How did the Indigenous Australians form from 3 God fearing white Canaanites and their virtuous missuses?

Also wondering if the fossils they find all the time were all laid down in said flood how come there's no human bones found alongside any dinosaur bones?

Will jump in Mono before johnsmith says carbon dating is only good for about 50 000 years and can't be used to date dinosaurs, hydrocarbon deposits etc..

Fortunately there's hundreds of other ways of determining the age of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating

It doesn't really matter anyway. I've run into this roadblock before. It's why I asked JS is the earth literally 6000 years old and that's it or is it 6000 years old with all the old stuff built into it.

Usually they say all the things you scientists are using, say ice cores that go back 10's of thousands of years, were put there by God on day dot. So not proof, checkmate! 

On this I was reading this thing about flat earthers and university grads and how NASA knows the earth is flat and space isn't real etc etc.

The bloke was saying at some point after being 'indoctrinated' all through university and life when those people arrive at NASA, the Chinese Space agency, European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Space X, any satellite manufacturer there must be a hell of a shock in the induction process.

NASA: 'By the way now you're working for us we need to let you know that everything we are doing here is all fake.'

Grad: 'What?!'

NASA: 'That's right, all of it'.

Grad: 'Holy smokes'.

NASA 'We get a lot of that but the main thing is not to tell anyone'. 

Grad: 'Anything else?'

NASA: 'Yeah all that stuff you learned about Marxism, you'll need to forget all about it'. **

** That last line added for Enzo and Rusty.

I have a much simpler question. If we assume the flood happened and Noah (600 years old at the time) built said ark. Floodwaters receded leaving the boat parked on Mt Ararat.

So far, so good.

Animals disembarked and went forth and multiplied right?

Sooooo.........a 2 part question here. How did the all the marsupials and monotremes in the world know that they all needed to go to Australia and Australia only? 

And....... how did they manage to traverse the 14000km overland journey. Presumably they didn't build their own boat and would have had to make their way here under their own steam. Not sure how far a platypus can walk in a day. Did the kangaroos, quolls, echidnas and bandicoots wait for them or did they make their way separately? Given platypus need a lot of water how did they cross the deserts in Iran and Afghanistan?

I'm not taking the piss here (lowercase) johnsmith I'm genuinely interested in how you think this happened.

Thanks for the response.

Could I also ask how, in light of your affirmation that you believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old, you respond to the fundamental principles of metallurgy, chemistry and geophysics as it pertains to industrial manufacturing? From a scientific viewpoint of course please? Is carbon dating a hoax? Are fossil fuels not the decaying hydrocarbons of 500 million year old plants science perceives them to be? Do geologist waste their time studying the fascinating "dance" of the tectonic plates on a 4.5 billion year old cooling Earth, and just assume the very metals and alloys you would require in a manufacturing capacity popped out of the "chaos" days before the pyramids sprung out of the ground? (Interesting side note on the Pyramids, while the Old Testament timeline says they predate Noah and the flood that destroyed all man mad structures on Earth they seem to still be there?).
I agree with you BTW I too see science as a "description" or perhaps even an "instruction manual" on this wonderful creation of his of all thing visible and invisible in the universe... God, I believe , has ALL the answers. I just dont think he has told ANYONE on earth what they are, especially not the heads of so called "major" religions..... The bible, at least in my eyes, is a bit like an old encyclopedia, just one that is really really reallly really out of date, written by people who believed in what they wrote at the time.... 

So just to drill down on this a little. 

When scientists observe light that has shifted in wavelength to give the cosmic microwave background radiation that they use to date the age of the universe are they wrong to do so or has your God built that into his creation. IE Scientists are actually observing this CMBR or God made it to look like it is 13.8 billion years old?. 

Or was the earth created in 6 days 6000 years ago? IE How long ago was the earth created?

So if I understand you correctly you cherry pick the verses to suit whatever position you're taking?

I did not answer your question.

The standard view among scholars and pastors is to agree on the core beliefs, and not insist in the peripherals. But even the core beliefs, there is so much difference of opinion. And anyone who claims theirs is the truth above others, is regarded as an arrogant fool.

And yet, if there actually is no way to know which Bible teacher is giving the true version -- then, at the end of time, we could say to God: "You have no right to sentence me, because there was no way for me to know which was true.".

Also, if there actually is no way to know which Bible teacher is giving the true version -- then there'd be no way to classify who are "false teachers" .... which the New Testament clearly does so.

Given that it's not feasible to write a book to answer you, I might have to answer by video, and that could take a few weeks.

I could readily give you a short, brief answer ... but it would not be detailed to the extent of being bullet-proof.

I would also draw up a chart showing a road-map of the issues I need to consider - otherwise the big picture would get lost in dialogue on any given small detail.

Doesn't really answer my question though does it.

You use bible scripture to support your position, they use bible scripture to support theirs.

The bible is supposedly the 'One true word of God'. So how do you reconcile polar opposite beliefs?

Yes, tsf, it is easier to live in fantasy. All of us, to an extent, seeks to dull the pain by going into a fantasy, e.g. workaholic, mindless amusements, getting drunk, drugs, addictions etc.

When we see the evil happening around the world, it is easier to have the fantasy that there is no such thing as a universally understood good and evil. (Because of there is no universal definition of good and evil, you're in fantasy for calling those people evil - because you wouldn't have any basis for claiming that what the other people are doing is evil).

When we see the evil in the world, it is easier to have the fantasy that there will be no justice against those evils, that everyone gets away with it.

tsf, it is easier to live in the fantasy that the crowd which we're following is heading in the right direction.

Romans 14:10 - "For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God"

2 Corinthians 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil."

Sometimes I think life would be so much easier if I just lived in a complete fantasy land as well. In many ways you are lucky. 

Among people who call themselves Christians -- not to mention cults and sects who reference the Bible -- there are innumerable divergent views on everything. And all those Christians who assert theirs is the truth, they all back theirs up by quoting Bible verses.

Hence, the starting question is: Is there a way to find the truth, given so many Christians and different religions all claim theirs is the truth?

I believe there is: if God, who loves us, wants us to come back to him, it is impossible that he did not provide a way to sift through the jungle of different assertions of truth, by Christians, other religions and atheists.

Interesting because flat earthers use these bible verses to support a flat earth.

https://www.worldslastchance.com/biblical-christian-beliefs/flat-earth-bible-verses-more-than-200.html

How is it that these bible verses are trumped by yours?

Yes, even among Christians there is that debate. The assertion is that the opening chapter of Genesis is merely story allegory. That is specifically why I quoted from Exodus 20:11, where God was stating who he is, and gave them the 10 Commandments.

I'm aware of the arguments either side. On balance of the totality of evidence I have seen, I go with the literal 6 days of creation.

Regarding the earth, round or flat ... I said I have a qualification in a science-related field, and I form my conclusions based on thinking through things based on scientific method and principles of law. Can you think of anything, based on scientific method, that would suggest that the earth is flat?

When I drop of liquid is in the vacuum of space, it forms itself into a rounded mass. That is physics. Nothing in the science of physics would indicate that a liquid or molten mass would form into a flat object in the vacuum of space.

To me, it is not just blindly following ideas. Uppermost and most important is the reasoning and logic.

So to put you out of your agony, of not knowing whether johnsmith (lowercase) believes whether the earth is round or flat ... Isaiah 40:22 refers to "the circle of the earth".

6 days in biblical terms equates to what? 6000 years?

I've heard each day was a 1000 years. I've heard others say literal days, I've heard other say millions.

So flat or not? On flat earth forums they dismiss these photos out of hand as CGI or composites.

I don't have to believe in God to ask you whether you think the earth is flat. I'm not asking for your evidence as to how you came to this conclusion. I'm just asking what you believe.

It's a given you believe in God. I don't need to be convinced of WHY you believe in God to ask you your opinion on what you think. You're just obfuscating to get away from providing an answer. 

I mean you could believe in something that had nothing to do with god such as stem-cell treatments or CRISPR technology. Things never mentioned by desert dwelling arabs 3000 years ago.  

Of course you are entitled to say I don't have to tell you what I think. That's your prerogative.

Flat or not?