...
3) The scientist in me recognizes that the information contained in your link does *not* prove God -- not even close.
Remember again that:
a) Science cannot conclude upon that which cannot be directly observed.
b) By definition, an intelligent designer cannot be directly observed.
c) Therefore, science cannot cannot conclude upon an intelligent designer.
So, again, it is an absolute, logical impossibility for scientific evidence to constitute proof for God's existence.
Quit calling that garbage "proof."
Perfectly said.
...
"Lomatia tasmanica in Tasmania: the sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old"
"A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea is estimated to be between 12,000 and 200,000 years old. The maximum age is theoretical, as the region it occupies was above water at some point between 10,000 and 80,000 years ago"
There are already organisms on earth that are est. to be far above 6,000 years of age, eliminating the aspect that creation might have happened.
Now you, yourself, are spouting a bunch of unprovable junk... by your own admission. Or do you have a real, working, time viewer?
After all this time, you have a gross misunderstanding of what "evidence" is.
Evidence means "that which is apparent," and it allows us to infer conclusions about any number of things to which the evidence is relevant.
However -- and this is really, really important for you to know --
the inference will only be as true as sound reasoning allows it to be. If you don't know what sound reasoning is, then your inference will be untrue (unless you make a lucky guess, and even then wouldn't know your guess is correct).
Because evidence is "that which is apparent," and because perception is fallible, what is 'apparent' may not actually be what it is, either in part or in whole. Sound inference reconciles perceptual fallibility,
and this is precisely why the scientific method is valid. In contrast, your continual disregard for the rules of sound inference leaves you completely unable to reconcile your own perceptual fallibility.
So, where does your perceptual fallibility lie? Simple -- you know that link of yours with all that "evidence" or "proof" or "evidence pointing to evidence" of God's existence? Well, it's plainly not. To you, that information is evidence (et al.) of God's existence because it appears that way...
to you. But, you can't reconcile that with the fact that your conclusion is logically impossible. Those of us who understand what we can and cannot infer from an empirical data set know it is logically impossible. You will never have physical evidence for an intelligent designer because it is impossible to infer intelligent design from physical evidence. I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E.
Clarifying further, on one hand, a person may understand both the scope and limitations of empirical inference and apply this knowledge to draw true conclusions from a set of evidence. In a scientific paper, the scope of inference is already known and needn't be mentioned (except to you, apparently) because they are directly guided by the limits of Empiricism. Scientific conclusions
always concede to a margin of error, and the lack of absolute certainty in the truth of scientific conclusions is reconciled because we never attempted to extend our search for truth beyond physical phenomena in the first place. Why should we care about what's absolutely true when we have pre-selected a method of learning that precludes our ability to consider absolute truth?
On the other hand, a person such as yourself, who has no idea of the rules of sound inference nor the scope/limits of Empiricism, lacks a consistent means of drawing conclusions from a set of evidence. The key word here is 'consistent.' Your logical consistency is atrocious, and it's precisely why you always contradict yourself and don't even know it. You think that you can suggest just about anything you want so long as you can imagine some way to connect the dots from some set of evidence to whatever conclusion you have about it at the time.
Logic simply does not allow for this flexibility. Those who think it does sound like you. Other examples include those who assert that truth is 'only' relative and never absolute, or those who assert the known existence of imaginary or hypothetical beings.
You actually fall into the latter category. Specifically, you begin with an unproven, arbitrary definition of God, and then try to prove that your God is correct with evidence. Nope, you can't do that -- inductive reasoning can't allow you to.
But do you know what is totally hilarious? The fact that you believe you have found empirical evidence for God makes you
an idolater!