Universe is not homogeneous as far as we know

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

This thread has been cleaned of some of the worst of the flaming and off topic posts.
This is the third mod hat in this thread.
There will not be a fourth - if you can't manage a civil discussion the thread will be closed.
Thanks

Mod Hat Off​

 

[dad]

But it IS the past. Not invalidated after all.

No, it is the present.

Your wild clutching at straws amuses me.

Be specific. Be nice.

You saw the rise of Greece?

We have the records. Alexander's existence is not really something we ought to question.

There is outside evidence for that, anyway. There is none for what you are claiming.

I claim that science doesn't know what forces existed and laws in the days of Noah. That is self evident, and anyoone is welcome to bring facts rather than rhetoric to bear on the issue.

You haven't said anything that indicates you have the slightest idea what parsimonious means.

I do not see how the concept applies to the pre science era?

How so?

If one looks at the atomic ratios in light of a different state past, without decay, then one might see some materials as having already been here, and not therefore needing to be produced by the decay process. Or, conversely, one might assume a present state with it's decay existed, and look at various isotopes in the same rock, and assume that all daughter material got there by decay. There is no way of knowing. Not by science. Is there?

 

[Tiberius]

No, it is the present.

Events that happened in the past are the present?

Be specific. Be nice.

You have never been specific, why should I?

We have the records. Alexander's existence is not really something we ought to question.

That's right. We have many different sources that come from the time that describe eyewitness acounts. The claims you are making do not have this.

I claim that science doesn't know what forces existed and laws in the days of Noah. That is self evident, and anyoone is welcome to bring facts rather than rhetoric to bear on the issue.

No, it is speculation.

I do not see how the concept applies to the pre science era?

Maybe if you knew what it meant you would see.

If one looks at the atomic ratios in light of a different state past, without decay, then one might see some materials as having already been here, and not therefore needing to be produced by the decay process. Or, conversely, one might assume a present state with it's decay existed, and look at various isotopes in the same rock, and assume that all daughter material got there by decay. There is no way of knowing. Not by science. Is there?

Yes there is a way of knowing, and I have already explained it to you. You speculate and guess in order to dismiss that science.

 

[dad]

Events that happened in the past are the present?

No, Past is past present is present, and future is future. The flood and creation were in the past.

You have never been specific, why should I?

You could one up me?

That's right. We have many different sources that come from the time that describe eyewitness acounts. The claims you are making do not have this.

The bible has that. Adam saw Seth. Adam saw Eve. Etc...

No, it is speculation.

What is??

Maybe if you knew what it meant you would see.

Tell us then?

Yes there is a way of knowing, and I have already explained it to you. You speculate and guess in order to dismiss that science.

Sorry, using the present as the key to the past is not any way to do anything but believe that the present state existed. Prove it. Otherwise I will default to the bible.

 

[Tiberius]

No, Past is past present is present, and future is future. The flood and creation were in the past.

And things that happened in the past have effects in the present.

You could one up me?

Considering I've already done that and you just dismiss my points with no good reason, I fail to see why I should waste my time explaining things to someone who refuses to listen.

The bible has that. Adam saw Seth. Adam saw Eve. Etc...

lol

Do you seriously not see the flaw in that?

What is??

Your claim that science doesn't know what forces existed and laws in the days of Noah.

Tell us then?

I already have, many times.

Sorry, using the present as the key to the past is not any way to do anything but believe that the present state existed. Prove it. Otherwise I will default to the bible.

Except you use the present-state Bible to make claims about the past too. So you're just as bad, aren't ya?

Now, no doubt, you are going to make excuses as to why the Bible is different, why the bibles that exist today somehow aren't "present state".

 

[razeontherock]

Now, no doubt, you are going to make excuses as to why the Bible is different, why the bibles that exist today somehow aren't "present state".

Yah, I'd like to get my Bible converted to one of them present state ones, where can I go to do that? (Is that like an orange Pepsi?)

 

[sandwiches]

Except you use the present-state Bible to make claims about the past too. So you're just as bad, aren't ya?

Now, no doubt, you are going to make excuses as to why the Bible is different, why the bibles that exist today somehow aren't "present state".

Dad believes that written records are accurate but geological, astronomical, biological, paleontological, or other scientific records aren't accurate.

Also, as far as written records go, ONLY the Bible records are accurate but no other written records are.

So, you're right. Excuses. I expect him to try to shift this unto us.

 

[Tiberius]

Yah, I'd like to get my Bible converted to one of them present state ones, where can I go to do that? (Is that like an orange Pepsi?)

"Present state" Bible in that they exist in the present state.

If the past was different, who knows how the Bible could have been different.

Of course, Dad's going to say that the Bible has never changed, despite the fact that he can claim for sure that the laws of the universe HAVE changed, even though he can't tell us what they used to be, when they changed, nor what caused them to change.

 

[dad]

And things that happened in the past have effects in the present.

Things in the present impact future...so? That doesn't mean that the same laws apply.

Considering I've already done that and you just dismiss my points with no good reason, I fail to see why I should waste my time explaining things to someone who refuses to listen.

A present state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed, nor were they, despite the empty talk.

lol

Do you seriously not see the flaw in that?

Witnesses that are no longer alive tend to be..well, not here anymore. That doesn't make em less real.

Your claim that science doesn't know what forces existed and laws in the days of Noah.

True, it hasn't a clue.

Except you use the present-state Bible to make claims about the past too. So you're just as bad, aren't ya?

The word of God is eternal! That means it is not present state limited as gravity and the nuclear forces are. You have at your disposal, something from another state! Really. Also something that will continue when all our laws are long gone. Be amazed.

 

[Tiberius]

Things in the present impact future...so? That doesn't mean that the same laws apply.

It does if the events of the past influence the present the same way very recent events influence the present.

I mean, if a flood last week caused the same results as a flood 10,000 years ago, wouldn't you say that the laws of the universe were the same? If they were different, wouldn't the flood 10,000 years ago have caused something we should not expect to see from a flood? Such as CDs of jazz music buried in the flood sediment?

A present state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed, nor were they, despite the empty talk.

A different state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk.

Witnesses that are no longer alive tend to be..well, not here anymore. That doesn't make em less real.

No, so we must turn to other things to verify that they were alive and did indeed say the things that they are claimed to have said.

So show me a source other than the Bible that shows the existence of Adam and Eve. Or Seth. And show me where these sources claim that thy said and did the things that the Bible claims they did.

True, it hasn't a clue.

No, science has a very good idea of how things worked in the distant past. Your claim that science does not know is pure speculation.

The word of God is eternal! That means it is not present state limited as gravity and the nuclear forces are. You have at your disposal, something from another state! Really. Also something that will continue when all our laws are long gone. Be amazed.

And ladies and gentlemen, I give you the excuse!

Exactly as I predicted he would. This PROVES I am right! How else could I have made my prediction back in post 725 and 728?

 

[dad]

It does if the events of the past influence the present the same way very recent events influence the present.

No, actually, not at all. Why would different laws do any of that in a different state?

I mean, if a flood last week caused the same results as a flood 10,000 years ago, wouldn't you say that the laws of the universe were the same?

I don't say the flooddunnit. If you did say that, we could talk coconino and all sorts of stuff. By the same token, if you want to claim the presentstatedunnit then you need real support for any claims that this present law and force regime existed. You sure do not have it.

If they were different, wouldn't the flood 10,000 years ago have caused something we should not expect to see from a flood? Such as CDs of jazz music buried in the flood sediment?

Ah, but there was no 10,000 years ago for earth. If you mean real years, say, 4500 or whatever of them, then perhaps we would be talking the KT layer or something close?

A different state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk.

Since A same state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk, you have no point. The same state opposes God and His word. The different state supports God and His word.

No, so we must turn to other things to verify that they were alive and did indeed say the things that they are claimed to have said.

Start turning then

So show me a source other than the Bible that shows the existence of Adam and Eve. Or Seth. And show me where these sources claim that thy said and did the things that the Bible claims they did.

No other sources can confirm or deny. Why, you suddenly want to accept ancient history??

No, science has a very good idea of how things worked in the distant past. Your claim that science does not know is pure speculation.

False. It is blind and clueless in the absolute extreme.

 

[Tiberius]

No, actually, not at all. Why would different laws do any of that in a different state?

Are you kidding me?

You really think that the laws of the universe were completely different in the past, but they had the same exact effect that they do today?

I don't say the flooddunnit. If you did say that, we could talk coconino and all sorts of stuff. By the same token, if you want to claim the presentstatedunnit then you need real support for any claims that this present law and force regime existed. You sure do not have it.

I was using a flood as an EXAMPLE. I never said it was noah';s flood. You can substitute anything you want. Swimming, eating pineapples, looking at the view, having a party.

Ah, but there was no 10,000 years ago for earth. If you mean real years, say, 4500 or whatever of them, then perhaps we would be talking the KT layer or something close?

Your lack of knowledge continues to astound and dismay me. You are using something 65 million years old to support the idea of a few-thousand-year-old earth?

Since A same state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk, you have no point. The same state opposes God and His word. The different state supports God and His word.

Since a different state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk, you have no point. The different state opposes reality. The same state supports reality.

Start turning then

There is nothing else that supports your claims. So why should we believe it?

No other sources can confirm or deny. Why, you suddenly want to accept ancient history??

lol, do you really believe this?

You think that when a single source says something which no opther source at all says, it is undoubtedly true. And yet for things that we have many different sources of, written by many different people, you say it can't be confirmed?

False. It is blind and clueless in the absolute extreme.

Another empty claim from you.

 

[dad]

Are you kidding me?

You really think that the laws of the universe were completely different in the past, but they had the same exact effect that they do today?

No. The effect we see today would not be caused by our laws. The way we imagine how things were caused is the only issue.

I was using a flood as an EXAMPLE. I never said it was noah';s flood. You can substitute anything you want. Swimming, eating pineapples, looking at the view, having a party.



Your lack of knowledge continues to astound and dismay me. You are using something 65 million years old to support the idea of a few-thousand-year-old earth?

The dating is wrong. It very well could be a layer that was near the time of the great flood. Who knows? (imaginary years aside)

Since a different state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk, you have no point. The different state opposes reality. The same state supports reality.

Since a same state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk, you have no point. The same state past state opposes the reality of God and the records. The different state past is in perfect agreement with them, and supports reality.

There is nothing else that supports your claims. So why should we believe it?

Nothing that supports a same state past..ditto. I have the ancient Sumer and Egypt records and God's to boot. Sure beats nothin.

lol, do you really believe this?

You think that when a single source says something which no opther source at all says, it is undoubtedly true. And yet for things that we have many different sources of, written by many different people, you say it can't be confirmed?

There were spirits in Egypt, kings even, they claim. There were long lives in Sumer. So the oldest records, near the nature change time do support a DSP...and nothing else!

Another empty claim from you.

No, science is on exhibit here as not knowing the forces and laws of the far past. What did you think the show was about? I find it pathetically funny that some cannot admit that man only knows what he obviously knows. Man needs to humble down.

 

[Tiberius]

No. The effect we see today would not be caused by our laws. The way we imagine how things were caused is the only issue.

And yet you have never been able to explain why this is so.

The dating is wrong. It very well could be a layer that was near the time of the great flood. Who knows? (imaginary years aside)

You claim it is wrong, yet you are not able to say why it is wrong? You need evidence to lead you to such a conclusion, but it seems that you are deciding on the conclusion without any evidence to support it! You are sciencing backwards.

Since a same state set of forces and laws cannot be proven to have existed in the past, despite the empty talk, you have no point. The same state past state opposes the reality of God and the records. The different state past is in perfect agreement with them, and supports reality.

Ah, but the same state past is very well supported by reality, as I have shown many times.

And you have consistently failed to show how a different state past supports reality. You can't even tell us what the differences were!

Nothing that supports a same state past..ditto. I have the ancient Sumer and Egypt records and God's to boot. Sure beats nothin.

Okay, provide them. Post something from the ancient sumerian records that shows that the universe was in a different past state. And explain how you have verified these records.

There were spirits in Egypt, kings even, they claim. There were long lives in Sumer. So the oldest records, near the nature change time do support a DSP...and nothing else!

This doesn't address what I said at all. As usual, you are trying to change the subject.

No, science is on exhibit here as not knowing the forces and laws of the far past. What did you think the show was about? I find it pathetically funny that some cannot admit that man only knows what he obviously knows. Man needs to humble down.

I find it funny that you have not been able to offer a shred of verifiable evidence to support your position.

 

[dad]

And yet you have never been able to explain why this is so.

Not all that is unknown need be explained, and is better not explained than cooking something up. The presumptuous models of earth based so called science are an example of what happens when people try to explain what is not known, by their beliefs.

" Because deuterium is destroyed in the interiors of stars faster than it is produced, and because other natural processes are thought to produce only an insignificant amount of deuterium, it is presently thought that nearly all deuterium found in nature was produced in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, and that the basic or primordial ratio of hydrogen-1 (protium) to deuterium (about 26 atoms of deuterium per million hydrogen) has its origin from that time." wiki

They use present nature alone as their vehicle to explaining the unknown. Nothing else is considered. If we see hydrogen and deuterium in the distant universe, they only seek to explain it by present earth state laws, and rules! If they see 'flipped' hydrogen, same thing. No matter what they see, same thing! Truth is they do not know.

You claim it is wrong, yet you are not able to say why it is wrong?

You are not able to show it right. That is what kills your case.

You need evidence to lead you to such a conclusion, but it seems that you are deciding on the conclusion without any evidence to support it! You are sciencing backwards.

The reason the dating is wrong, is because it assumes a same state past as the origin of all daughter isotopes, and etc.

And you have consistently failed to show how a different state past supports reality. You can't even tell us what the differences were!

The reality of the records of earliest man support only a DSP. The 'reality' of the belief system, based on physical only laws of earth's present state doesn't matter. Reality has to include real.

Okay, provide them. Post something from the ancient sumerian records that shows that the universe was in a different past state. And explain how you have verified these records.

The records indicate long lives. Real long. So does the bible. That supports a DSP. Can you live 1000 years now? It had to be more than the air or water, etc.

This doesn't address what I said at all. As usual, you are trying to change the subject.

No. The fact that spirits are recorded to have lived in this world of man in earliest Egypt, agrees with the bible. We see that they even married in the bible.

I find it funny that you have not been able to offer a shred of verifiable evidence to support your position.

I find it funny that you have not been able to offer a shred of verifiable evidence to support your position. Not only that, but your position flies directly in the face of records.

Give it up.

 

[RickG]

The dating is wrong. It very well could be a layer that was near the time of the great flood. Who knows? (imaginary years aside)

That assumption is incorrect.

http://www.geo.uu.nl/Research/Paleomagnetism/publications/Kuiper_2008_Science.pdf

 

[Tiberius]

Not all that is unknown need be explained, and is better not explained than cooking something up. The presumptuous models of earth based so called science are an example of what happens when people try to explain what is not known, by their beliefs.

You seem to be insisting that no one ever tries to explain it, just so you can cling to your ancient myths.

" Because deuterium is destroyed in the interiors of stars faster than it is produced, and because other natural processes are thought to produce only an insignificant amount of deuterium, it is presently thought that nearly all deuterium found in nature was produced in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, and that the basic or primordial ratio of hydrogen-1 (protium) to deuterium (about 26 atoms of deuterium per million hydrogen) has its origin from that time." wiki

They use present nature alone as their vehicle to explaining the unknown. Nothing else is considered. If we see hydrogen and deuterium in the distant universe, they only seek to explain it by present earth state laws, and rules! If they see 'flipped' hydrogen, same thing. No matter what they see, same thing! Truth is they do not know.

So if we see deuterium in the ancient universe, and if deuterium was created in the ancient universe, this is somehow wrong?

You are not able to show it right. That is what kills your case.

Ah, but I have shown it to be right.

On the other hand, you have provided nothing except unsupported claims. You are not able to show your position to be right.

The reason the dating is wrong, is because it assumes a same state past as the origin of all daughter isotopes, and etc.

And so far, the only thing you have provided to show that a same past state position is wrong is a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The reality of the records of earliest man support only a DSP. The 'reality' of the belief system, based on physical only laws of earth's present state doesn't matter. Reality has to include real.

And you think that the ideas of a bunch of cavemen who had very little understanding of how the world works are more authoritative than science?

The records indicate long lives. Real long. So does the bible. That supports a DSP. Can you live 1000 years now? It had to be more than the air or water, etc.

Aesop's fables indicate that animals could once speak. Can animals speak now? When was the last time you saw a lion or a fox or a bear talk? So I guess this proves that the past state was one where animals could talk!

No. The fact that spirits are recorded to have lived in this world of man in earliest Egypt, agrees with the bible. We see that they even married in the bible.

I have no idea how you got to this from what I said.

I said that it is foolish to claim that science is false when it has a great deal of supporting evidence when the source you cite is the only source to mention it.

The Bible says a particular thing, and no other source anywhere says it, and you accept it as fact.

Science says a particular thing, and dozens of independently conducted experiments from all over the world, using different techniques, from different scientists, at different times all say the same thing, and you dismiss it as wrong.

This is what I am saying, and yet you try to turn it into a discussion about how ancient Egyptian records show people married ghosts.

I find it funny that you have not been able to offer a shred of verifiable evidence to support your position. Not only that, but your position flies directly in the face of records.

You laugh at my inability to provide verifiable evidence? I'm sorry, I must have missed all the bits where I showed how radio dating techniques prove it. Last I heard, those techniques are verifiable.

And isn't it hypocritical that you criticise my so-called lack of evidence, when you have provided none yourself? Doesn't the Bible say something about removing the plank from your own eye before talking about the splinter in someone else's? That's a pretty big plank in your eye, dad. It seems to be blocking your view of reality. Take it out and enjoy the view, it's glorious.

Give it up.

I will when presented with a convincing reason to. Your repeated claims that you are right and I am wrong are not a reason, nor are they particularly convincing.

EDITED TO ADD...

Here's something I came across...

Pristine relics of the Big Bang spotted

Let me quote a paragraph from this...

"For the first time, astronomers have discovered two distant clouds of gas that seem to be pure relics from the Big Bang. Neither cloud contains any detectable elements forged by stars; instead, each consists only of the light elements that arose in the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago. Furthermore, the relatively high abundance of deuterium seen in one of the clouds agrees with predictions of Big Bang theory."

Please take note of the bolded section.

Dad, could you explain why the relatively high abundance of deuterium seen in one of the clouds agrees with predictions of Big Bang theory if the predictions of the Big Bang theory are wrong?

 

[fenix144]

I don't know why you ask him. Dad is clearly clueless.

 

[razeontherock]

I If they were different, wouldn't the flood 10,000 years ago have caused something we should not expect to see from a flood? Such as CDs of jazz music buried in the flood sediment?

I knew Clifford Brown was unreal

 

[dad]

I don't know why you ask him. Dad is clearly clueless.

Viva the English language. Viva the truth of the bible, in the English especially...and the rest can post something on one side or the other, in English, when they get a clue.