In the case of evolution, geology and cosmology, all the jigsaw pieces are correct. It's up to the user to come to the conclusion about what they mean.
No it isn't. If the pieces of the puzzle are right they can only mean one thing and the user has no right to deny it.
Interesting. You just denied that humans interpret data. You also skipped over the assumption I palmed onto you: that science had produced correct jigsaw pieces. Rather than attack that, you chose to say something incorrect. The quoting system must be getting to you.
You admitted before that you did not know much about the fossil record, or much about the sciences that have produced the jigsaw puzzle pieces. What you seem to be basing your deduction on, is meta-puzzle-pieces, provided by creationist critique of what you presume to be the actual puzzle pieces. For example, various creationists stunts, like sending Mt St Helens volcanic rock into a lab to produce a false dating on it. The jigsaw puzzle analogy is flawed, because science puzzle pieces overlap, and many bits are missing. With skill, a user who is missing [even more] pieces can deliberately assemble them in the wrong way.
I have the advantage of the consensus of scientists who know the subject and have been rigorously critiquing other's work. You do not have that advantage, because no creationist has ever produced a theory to be critiqued, so you cannot rely on a group consensus to assemble your puzzle for you; at least not a group that sticks to any single story. Because of this, you have no choice but to pursue the subject as an amateur sleuth with extreme prejudice. In other words, I contend that you do not look at the entirety of the original data, but are pointed to certain parts of it by a people who are already incredibly biased.
Therefore your puzzle pieces are a small subset of pieces that have been preselected to be misleading. You don't look at the puzzle, but the anti-puzzle. You would naturally refuse to do this for your own beliefs, and contend that I would do the same to yours. But, how would I go about doing this for your beliefs in Christianity? Exactly what proof would I be looking for, besides a personal experience of JC? Believing say-so stories about the resurrection does not quite cut it. The reason for this, is that no set of theologians believe in any interpretation which is consistent, and even the Bible stories do not match up. There is nothing for me to look at. You have a wealth of things in science to get busy looking at.
Atheists do the same thing. Are you really going to tell me that geologists know how old rocks are? You seriously believe paleontologists know how old fossils are?
No, but I can look at a volcanic plug myself. Take the caldera of a crater around where I live:
That's a massive volcano (55km across) that happened 22 million years ago, and then eroded over that course of time, and left a plug, called Mt Warning. The volcanic plug is made of harder material, which is slowly dropping around the base of the plug. By the rate the rocks drop down from the volcanic plug, and the composition of the rocks at its base, I can see that this erosion would have taken more than 10,000 years, [thanks], and that even if the caldera had been made by a flood, the plug would not have eroded in 6000 years. I can see this with my own eyes.
No matter how massive the evidence in favour of any particular theory, it only takes one inconvenient fact to screw it up. Your YEC belief can be screwed up by any number on inconvenient facts, but you choose instead, to spend your time looking for random faults in someone elses theory. The faults you find don't amount to anything. So, sometimes dating techniques mis-date rocks, but that doesn't mean that the world is 6000 years old.
Further, this volcano caused numerous igneous intrusions into coal seams which underly the region. This has coal seam gas companies salivating, because the volcano drove off water from the coal deposits. Coal deposits are very deep fossilized plants. If I were to believe you, then these plants got buried 2km deep in the flood, and then a volcano penetrated the region and boiled the water off, soon after the flood, and then in 6000 years the caldera eroded.
No, I don't think so.
We also have some interesting sandstone rock formations that have eroded very slowly by wind. You have the "Arizona wave". You can measure the rate this all happens, if you can be bothered.
Therefore, by your own definition of "proof", proof changes according to what you feel like on the day, and what your bias is.Oh no my friend. When Jesus showed Himself alive from the dead, what the Apostles felt like on another day didn't change that proof. Evidence can be misinterpreted, but proof can never be changed.
Showed himself to you, did he? Or are you relying on the lies on 3 books?
At least we know what your definition of proof is, now: personal bias.Personal bias involves personal motive. I have none. Neither did the disciples.
FFS. The gospel is a propaganda tirade, that ridicules/polemics anything that gets in its way.
What's the argument? If Christians want to pretend to be possessed by devils, and speak a load of gibberish that even their own church condemns, I say more power to themYour position as one outside and having no interest in Gods church is understandable.
I quoted/linked to a Christian's opinion on the subject. Tongues is condemned by most(?) Christians.
Trollin trollin trollin. I can assure you that nonsense is perfectly normal to any human, no matter what their belief system, and this is why you believe that the sun and stars were created in the Earth's upper atmosphere, one day after plant life; and that Noah distributed 900 species of eucalypts back to Australia, and put mistletoe on them, and re-established the mistoe bird ecosystem. Pot kettle white.Well, it looks like you're into wonderful atheistic arguments for why the Bible is nonsense. What argument do you have for the nonsense that after the big bang, all those exploding gasses traveling at the speed of light somehow compressed themselves into stars? But on second thought nevermind, because I forgot about all that dark matter.
So, your proof is that we have not got all the pieces, yet?
Fortunately we have the sun and geothermal energy as inputs. Although we don't know what the first chemical reaction was, that harnessed external energy and beat entropy within itself, it's perfectly obvious that this reaction is self sustaining, unless you want to claim that God is behind all life's chemical reactions.Life doesn't come from chemical reactions. Life only comes from other life. Do you know what my scientific conclusion is from this fact? Life has always existed....and you know the Bible says God is life.
Yeah, but God is a sort of spiritual life, so your logic is not useful. DNA did not slip off God. God is not made of DNA. Even you would contend that God simply messed with amino acids. The amino acids were dead. How do viruses fit into your logic? They are dead, but still live. There is lots of life out there that doesn't qualify as "life". Once again, stop taking credit for a god's work.
ED: add [even more]