Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[Vene]

Far as we know, yes. I don't see ho distant starlight could now get here in a week, do you? I do not see how water could come up from below on a planetary scale, or oceans of water could be up above the earth under present laws, do you??



Yes, I am suggesting just that.


Easy. All we do is change the fabric of the universe, and remove the spiritual component temporarily. This affects the relationship of matter, since the spiritual added to matter affects the overall mix.





It need not change, that was the point. When it came to exist, the daughter material assumed the decay process position. The relationship was not parent daughter before.

Provide evidence for your claims.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Provide evidence for your claims.

Dad provided me with evidence once, it was extremely compelling.

Short version?

The Great Pyramid at Giza proves everything he is saying beyond any possible doubt

 

[atomweaver]

Well, the earth obviously was inhospitable, or why else would He make a garden for us??

I have a garden in my backyard (two, actually). Is my front yard inhospitable? No. A garden is good for cultivating food, a garden can be beautiful. THe existence of a garden doesn't make non-gardens inhospitable.

It was also on the way to becoming hospitable for Eden life over the process of time, as needed. Therefore it was very good, and all part of the plan.

Chapter and verse please, noting that you've abandoned Proverbs as not supporting your original assertion (glad to have helped you with that, with DaveISBG's help, of course)...

Well, either they did, in the form of kids born to daughter of Eve, not mentioned (only the firstborn male need be mentioned), or the lady referred to a time soon after Eden, in the hospitable area where we ended up after getting the boot. Either way, God wins, you lose.

So now, its an "either-or" situation. Great! If you can interpret the Bible in an either or fashion, you concede your errancy in interpretation.

I allowed his take on things, as sufficient evidence that Cain had wives to chose from. Not as any proof that no kids also may not have been born before. That, I think is unknown.

You think that the birth of children to Adam and Eve in the Garden (ie pre-Fall, free of sin) would go un-mentioned by the Bible? The Bible??!??? Oh brother, please...
Your playing as free and loose with your Biblical interpretations, as you do your make-up stories about what has to be 'just so' in an unevidneced 'different past" in order to make your literal Bible interpretations jive. I'd expect the science-contortion from just about any creationist, but the insertions of all of these "either-or" wild-eyed hypotheses into Biblical accounts is really out there, even for a creationist...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Far as we know, yes.

GLARING ERROR ALERT: Gravity and light have not changed "as far as we know".

The fact is: "AS FAR AS WE KNOW" they have NOT changed.

Now, of course you can guess that they have, but that is not "as far as we know".

We "know" of no such change.

I don't see ho distant starlight could now get here in a week, do you?

I do. Here's the hint: They didn't, and the Bible is...gasp...metaphorical or literally wrong!

I know, that's weird isn't it? Why someone wouldn't believe a bunch of bronze age creation myths is a total mystery.

And further it is a mystery why few will believe a scientific sub-literate posting incoherent, anti-scientific, illogical, poorly constrained pseudo-philosophy on a web board!

Maybe if one of those actually had data to support the claims either one might be believable on this count!

Easy. All we do is change the fabric of the universe,

Good luck Einstein!

and remove the spiritual component temporarily.

You like to hide a lot of your guesses in this mysterious "Spiritual matter". I think maybe you should just change the name to the element Bullexcretium and be done with it. You can even give it a snazzy chemical symbol: Bu.

So now instead of having to blather on and wear your typin' finger out typing out "Spiritual matter" you can just shorten it to "Bu". It's free to use because there are no elements on the Periodic Table that carry that designation, so no one will confuse it with something real.

This affects the relationship of matter, since the spiritual added to matter affects the overall mix.

Matter + Bu --> Whatever Dad wants it to be!

Easy peasy!

When it came to exist, the daughter material assumed the decay process position. The relationship was not parent daughter before.

Let me expand this a bit for you, Einstein, Let's just guess here that Bu has a few unstable isotopes whose half-lives are simply whatever you want them to be!

[sup]xxx[/sup]Bu decays to [sup]xxx-1[/sup]Bu in negative 30dad-o-seconds to make whatever daughterproducts dad will need to support his argument.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Did you just say that light and gravity have changed?

Vene, have you not encountered Dad's "Different Past" model?

CLIFFS NOTES VERSION:
0. Start with an actual valid concept in "Empricism" around the problems of "knowing" the "unobserved"
1. Take David Hume, dig him up and do unspeakable things to his corpse
2. Then take "empiricism", strip out anything that might make it hard to use the extreme forms of it (the conundrum around knowing the "unobserved")
3. Post whatever you like.
4. When asked how far back the past was the same, set that number at some arbitrary distance into the past but just beyond whatever the person you are debating against has mentioned recently in their posts.
5. Or, failing #4, just peg it to some mythical event from the Bible. (That way if a specific time is mentioned that falls into that you can jump ahead to Step 6 really fast and backtrack on Step 5 to make it all match up).
6. When scientific facts are presented, talk about how elements and things are different when "Spiritual matter" is involved.
7. The same can be done for unobserved physical items as well. (See how he has handled the concepts around what the interior of the earth is like in THIS thread --starts later on, around pg 23 or so)

Frumious had provided an excellent listing of some of Dad's better concepts HERE

It's a wonderland of half-digested philosophy, snarkiness, pride, and a shallowness of thought that puts it very close to monolayer territory.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, it is a good point, if true, in that it is interesting, and makes evolution from the pond look real real silly.

Well, It seems that is what is important to you, dad... making evolution look silly. I guess if my position was as ludicrous as yours, I would want the opposing position to look silly as well.

 

[Split Rock]

Ok, in that case explain pollen distribution, pollen doesn't have roots and it shows the same distribution patterns as the plants it comes from, I knew my modules in the pollen micropalaeontology would come in useful one day

This is an excellent point, and one I have never seen a creationist respond to.

Go ahead, Richard... tackle this one for us.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok, in that case explain pollen distribution, pollen doesn't have roots and it shows the same distribution patterns as the plants it comes from, I knew my modules in the pollen micropalaeontology would come in useful one day

This same argument works for shark's teeth as well. Sharks shed their teeth on a regular basis. If YEC is correct then we should find shed shark teeth in Pre-cambrian marine sediments, but we don't. Instead, we find them in the same layers as shark skeletons. Here is a pic of a C. megalodon tooth.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The same is also true of creatures that have exoskeletons such as trilobites. Most of their fossils are just shells, so you would expect to find them in the Precambrian if they had been around since the formation of the Earth.

BUT YOU DO NOT

 

[Naraoia]

We don't know. There is no reason to assume it got there as it now gets there. The ratios have nothing, therefore to do with real time. They are simply left in the proportions we see, from whatever former process was in place.
Therefore all ratios are proportioned properly, we simply don't know why. You assume the why, by assuming a same past. I assume the why by assuming a different past. Science is mum on the issue. Gagged. Silent. Muted. Inept. Irrelevant. Stabbing in the dark. Unaware. Guessing. Devoid of a clue.

Dad, you might want to think about who is stabbing in the dark here.
Science makes the most reasonable assumption based on what we already know about a natural phenomenon (and that's that radioactive decay is remarkably unaffected by most environmental conditions imaginable on earth). You, on the other hand, have no idea what might have happened but are somehow sure it wasn't what science thinks. Without the puniest shred of evidence for your stance.

Look for a mess. Look for rapid moving of continents, obscuring flood evidence. I think what precisely to look for we don't know. Possibly some iridium from below or above the earth deposited. Possibly one of the 'extinctions'. But one must be careful of glacial evidence, and ice age events, and many things, that men of old may have assumed were from the flood.

Of all things, why iridium? Because you've heard some vague newsbabble about the K/T asteroid and the iridium spike?

In short, you have no idea again. Why should anyone take your model seriously when it doesn't even make proper predictions? (I'm only whispering this, but if you knew the first thing about geology you could probably work out a few. I'd bet a good sum that not many of them woud be found in the real world.)

 

[Naraoia]

Easy. All we do is change the fabric of the universe, and remove the spiritual component temporarily. This affects the relationship of matter, since the spiritual added to matter affects the overall mix.

IOW, Dad demonstrates that he has no idea what he's talking about.

(1) What do you mean by "the fabric of the universe"?

(2) In what ways does the "spiritual component" affect it?

Yeah, bad fantasy is easy. You need to try a bit harder in science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Dad, you might want to think about who is stabbing in the dark here.

Be prepared for Dad's trademarked clever comeback utilizing random word choices from your post. I suspect it will contain something about "stabbing" and "dark".

Of all things, why iridium? Because you've heard some vague newsbabble about the K/T asteroid and the iridium spike?

That was my first guess as to why he went straight to Ir.

It also helps if you want to ultimately "cover your bases". Like if someone were to bring up the Ir anomaly at the K/T boundary, Dad now has established an a priori case for prior claims.

Ultimately I will expect him to cover the Periodic Table, but Ir is as good a place to start as any.

What I find interesting is Dad spent so much time telling us all about how unknown the core of the earth is and how it may likely contain spiritual matter (Bu, if you will), that ironically enough because Ir is a siderophilic element it is likely so rare up here precisely because what there was of it was more attracted to the Fe-rich core!

But let's assume for a second Ir is actually a "Spiritophilic" element and goes where Spiritual Matter goes!

There, Dad, I'm helping you. You're welcome. Please come again.

(I'm only whispering this, but if you knew the first thing about geology you could probably work out a few. I'd bet a good sum that not many of them woud be found in the real world.)

Shhh, Dad doesn't need to prove anything. His version of logic trumps this. He will only demand you disprove him.

 

[TheOutsider]

Of all things, why iridium? Because you've heard some vague newsbabble about the K/T asteroid and the iridium spike?

Maybe he just really really likes Looney Tunes.

 

[dad]

Provide evidence for your claims.

The bible is a document that deals in antiquities. It describes things that require major differences in the fundamental way the universe operated. That is evidence. Also, we have the history of man, that starts about the time it should, and languages that are different, as a result of the change, and evolution that is now observed to be slow, etc.

The evidences available all point to a different past, and we can add to that the evidence that modern science has no idea what the state of the universe will be or was at all.
But you will have to take it or leave it, as it is too big for this thread. You can agree to disagree, but have to admit that science can't say. That is all that is needed.

 

[dad]

I have a garden in my backyard (two, actually). Is my front yard inhospitable? No. A garden is good for cultivating food, a garden can be beautiful. THe existence of a garden doesn't make non-gardens inhospitable.

Well, I have science that clears up the issue. Look at what we know about the primordial earth. There were swampy areas, a lack of grasses, and, as time went on, a lot of big scary creatures. Do you have those in your yard??

Chapter and verse please, noting that you've abandoned Proverbs as not supporting your original assertion (glad to have helped you with that, with DaveISBG's help, of course)...

No idea what you are talking about. The lady in prov 8 witnessed the creation. Deal with it. And there were sons of man there in the garden, far as I am concerned, yntil you prove otherwise, and that just ain't gonna happen, I suspect!

So now, its an "either-or" situation. Great! If you can interpret the Bible in an either or fashion, you concede your errancy in interpretation.

No I don't, - I concede it whumps your position either way we look at it! I do not need to lock into one or the other. If evidence demanded, I would pick.

You think that the birth of children to Adam and Eve in the Garden (ie pre-Fall, free of sin) would go un-mentioned by the Bible? The Bible??!??? Oh brother, please...

Did I say born to that couple? No. I said from daughters of them. The gals don't count in bible chronology, as a rule, now do they?


Your position is devastated here, try and adjust accordingly, and move on.

 

[flatworm]

AiG answers:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/CFoL/ch3-fossil-plants.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/plants.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/origin-of-plants

My, my- I see that when one of AIG's PRATTs (hydrodynamic sorting, in this case) gets shot down in flames, you just pull out another one... without a hint of increased skepticism towards the source that was just shown to be so deceptive and flat-out wrong.

Remember, you once asked what you had to do to question evolution without being laughed at? I told you "question everything equally". Do you think you're doing that?

 

[dad]

GLARING ERROR ALERT: Gravity and light have not changed "as far as we know".

The fact is: "AS FAR AS WE KNOW" they have NOT changed.

Correction, I meant as far as bible believers and science knows. Science (the "we" you must mean) don't hardly count, as they don't know anything about the state of the past, beyond the present state. No change in light and laws since then is claimed, you are in fatal error there.

Now, of course you can guess that they have, but that is not "as far as we know".

We "know" of no such change.

We do so, you don't. You are not privy to anything but the severe limits of present science, and that knows squat about it.

I do. Here's the hint: They didn't, and the Bible is...gasp...metaphorical or literally wrong!

Gasp, no God is bang on, you are under suspicion.

I know, that's weird isn't it? Why someone wouldn't believe a bunch of bronze age creation myths is a total mystery.

Cain's crowd worked metal from the time of the fall. The other ages are slewed half truths, based on partial info, and mega assumptions, and an ungodly starting point.

And further it is a mystery why few will believe a scientific sub-literate posting incoherent, anti-scientific, illogical, poorly constrained pseudo-philosophy on a web board!

Well, I think you could improve that a bit, but you do have a point there. So far your position appears ridiculous.

Maybe if one of those actually had data to support the claims either one might be believable on this count!

Data is not limited to physical things, as science is. You can handle only so much data. After that, the circuits get hot, and you start repeating 'it does nor compute' or some such. Great truths that go beyond the scope of POscience, can not be limited to a robotic PO program.

Good luck Einstein!

Thanks. Glad you are a friend.

You like to hide a lot of your guesses in this mysterious "Spiritual matter". I think maybe you should just change the name to the element Bullexcretium and be done with it. You can even give it a snazzy chemical symbol: Bu.

My goodness, that was a short friendship.

So now instead of having to blather on and wear your typin' finger out typing out "Spiritual matter" you can just shorten it to "Bu". It's free to use because there are no elements on the Periodic Table that carry that designation, so no one will confuse it with something real.

I understand how you yearn for something PO. But reality goes far beyond the limits of man's present knowledge, and scope.

Matter + Bu --> Whatever Dad wants it to be!

Easy peasy!

Matter is what it is, and was what it was, and will be what it will be. Que sera. All you know is a bit about Que PO.

Let me expand this a bit for you, Einstein, Let's just guess here that Bu has a few unstable isotopes whose half-lives are simply whatever you want them to be!

No, half lives in this present state universe are quite well known. Really,

[sup]xxx[/sup]Bu decays to [sup]xxx-1[/sup]Bu in negative 30dad-o-seconds to make whatever daughterproducts dad will need to support his argument.

The way the present matter decay process works, is well known. Rather than blather, you would simply need to demonstrate that the universe was also as is in the far past. Otherwise, you are simply admitting that you can't compute, and it doesn't compute for you.

 

[Vene]

The bible is a document that deals in antiquities. It describes things that require major differences in the fundamental way the universe operated. That is evidence. Also, we have the history of man, that starts about the time it should, and languages that are different, as a result of the change, and evolution that is now observed to be slow, etc.

The evidences available all point to a different past, and we can add to that the evidence that modern science has no idea what the state of the universe will be or was at all.
But you will have to take it or leave it, as it is too big for this thread. You can agree to disagree, but have to admit that science can't say. That is all that is needed.

Provide scripture then along with rationale as to why it's both relevant and pertains to observable reality.

 

[Vene]

Correction, I meant as far as bible believers and science knows. Science (the "we" you must mean) don't hardly count, as they don't know anything about the state of the past, beyond the present state. No change in light and laws since then is claimed, you are in fatal error there.


We do so, you don't. You are not privy to anything but the severe limits of present science, and that knows squat about it.



Gasp, no God is bang on, you are under suspicion.


Cain's crowd worked metal from the time of the fall. The other ages are slewed half truths, based on partial info, and mega assumptions, and an ungodly starting point.


Well, I think you could improve that a bit, but you do have a point there. So far your position appears ridiculous.

Data is not limited to physical things, as science is. You can handle only so much data. After that, the circuits get hot, and you start repeating 'it does nor compute' or some such. Great truths that go beyond the scope of POscience, can not be limited to a robotic PO program.




Thanks. Glad you are a friend.




My goodness, that was a short friendship.


I understand how you yearn for something PO. But reality goes far beyond the limits of man's present knowledge, and scope.




Matter is what it is, and was what it was, and will be what it will be. Que sera. All you know is a bit about Que PO.



No, half lives in this present state universe are quite well known. Really,


The way the present matter decay process works, is well known. Rather than blather, you would simply need to demonstrate that the universe was also as is in the far past. Otherwise, you are simply admitting that you can't compute, and it doesn't compute for you.

Provide evidence for your claims.

 

[dad]

Ac

Well, It seems that is what is important to you, dad... making evolution look silly. I guess if my position was as ludicrous as yours, I would want the opposing position to look silly as well.

Actually, that is wrong. Evolution as it is taught, and understood today, does not cover the Pond fable any more. That is, as you know, abiogenesis.

But it seems suspicious that things appear fully intact in the record, id the claim is true. That smacks more of a migration, and creatures arriving on the scene. Just because I think that we had the ability to adapt fast as needed, does not mean that there was some succession of lifeforms that omits creation.