Different state past

[CaliforniaSun]

I will not argue that that would be an atheistic assumption.

I would assume everything looks different on the outside, looking in.

That's why people who are in war zones sometimes get caught and accused of being a spy, when they are really working for MSNBC.

I understand how this might be a theist assumption. It's why people who play virtual games sometimes have trouble with reality.

 

[FreethinkerWWJD]

This "different state past" thing is completely ridiculous.

This is clearly an act of desperation... When all physical evidence points that you are wrong, just assert that all physical evidence is worthless because reality was different back then!

Why are you people actually entertaining this idea? It's pure fiction.

It's just bad science... "you can't PROVE the laws were the same, so I'm going to ASSUME they weren't!"

 

[AV1611VET]

This "different state past" thing is completely ridiculous.

What's the matter?

Can't stomach a time on earth when there was no death?

A time when God actually walked the earth in the cool of the day with Adam & Eve in sweet communion?

You just can't believe there was a time when there were no thorns & thistles, and all of God's creatures got along in sweet harmony, can you?

For you to believe anything -- it has to be on its way to death and dying, doesn't it?

Just like God put the Old Testament priests out of a job, He's going to put you ... scientists out of a job with a New Heaven and a New Earth.

Then what are you going to do with your fancy entropy and laws of thermodynamics and tectonic plates and vulcan eruptions and Y2Ks and all that other doomsday bologna you guys love to spout?

The purity of everything will drive you guys nuts, won't it?

 

[dad]

This "different state past" thing is completely ridiculous.

This is clearly an act of desperation...

Regardless of motives, the act clearly destroys the fundamental bedrock basis for the modeling of the past by physical only minded men.

When all physical evidence points that you are wrong,

False. None actually. I can see you are new to the concept.

just assert that all physical evidence is worthless because reality was different back then!

Not me. Physical evidence, like a fishbowl, is fine, for what it is.

Why are you people actually entertaining this idea? It's pure fiction.

They are allowed to think. Get with the plan.

It's just bad science... "you can't PROVE the laws were the same, so I'm going to ASSUME they weren't!"

False. The very fact that you cannot prove they were the same negates any need to assume anything. Who cares what you assume once your proving ability is dashed to shreds?

 

[NGC 6712]

Called out on your hogwash yet again, eh dad. Just like your posts years ago. Has anyone ever actually agreed with you? (sock puppets don't count.)

 

[dad]

Called out on your hogwash yet again, eh dad. Just like your posts years ago. Has anyone ever actually agreed with you? (sock puppets don't count.)

No idea what you are talking about. FYI I have learned stuff in the last several years.

You see, the poor folks over at the forum that hides the intellectually insecure folks, by killing all real debate, were just my spawning grounds. You will need to rent a telescope and look way upstream to get my position now! I kid you not. The new reality is that I am undefeatable and your case is indefensible.

If you think that some kids whining a little is calling me out, you better think again. That is more like a small flutter in a huge sail on a ship on a calm day. The wind having been already knocked out of their positions long ago.

 

[Elendur]

False. The very fact that you cannot prove they were the same negates any need to assume anything. Who cares what you assume once your proving ability is dashed to shreds?

Start using the correct terms.
It's been explained several times that "prove" and "proof" isn't the correct terms for this kind of discussion.

Also, I might add that it does matter what you assume.
I guess you still haven't embraced Last-Thursdayism.

 

[Jazer]

What's the matter?

Can't stomach a time on earth when there was no death?

I think that perhaps no one has any problem with a multiverse theory. We can all imagine all sorts of different universes. The question is what does the evidence indicate? If you want to solve a puzzle then you have to use the pieces you are given. If you want to solve a mystery you have to work with the clues you have. If God created this earth then we have to work with the clues and pieces that we find in the natural record. Even your embeded age theory does not change that this is what we have to work with and this is what we are given to figure out.

As long as you bring this up for conversation: "Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam was told on the DAY that he eatest he would die. Then we are told that: "Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." For a GAP this shows us that a day can be 1000 years. How does a YEC explain this verse?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that perhaps no one has any problem with a multiverse theory.

I do.

We can all imagine all sorts of different universes.

I suppose.

The sky's the limit, eh?

The question is what does the evidence indicate?

Probably ten different things.

If you want to solve a puzzle then you have to use the pieces you are given.

Who says it's a puzzle?

That's the thing about scientists: they think everything is one big mystery, and that they are here to solve it for us.

They first convince the general public that we have a crisis on-hand, then they assure us they're here to solve it (e.g. Y2K).

These guys act like they're knights in shining armor; but they're nothing more than tin men looking at shadows.

If you want to solve a mystery you have to work with the clues you have.

Except I don't sit and scratch myself to death, wondering what it's all about.

If scientists want to play Clue with themselves, so be it; but not all of us are that easy to sway.

If God created this earth then we have to work with the clues and pieces that we find in the natural record.

Why do you keep referring to them as 'clues?'

Even your embeded age theory does not change that this is what we have to work with and this is what we are given to figure out.

Science can keep their short, stubby myopic fingers off embedded age.

We'll tell them how it works (for once), not the other way around.

As long as you bring this up for conversation: "Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam was told on the DAY that he eatest he would die. Then we are told that: "Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." For a GAP this shows us that a day can be 1000 years. How does a YEC explain this verse?

I don't know -- I'm not a YEC.

Personally, I interpret that as meaning they died spiritually.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

-- Teddy, have you forgotten why we are having this conversation?

You wanted to know why I believe in God and the Bible.

My answer is because I experienced peace and joy when I asked Christ to save me.

You are now taking this down another road, and I suspect it is because the devil wants you to forget my answer.

Luke 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

I'm actually just interested. I'm not sure how asking you about your political beliefs (which you put out there in your list, not I) is doing anything like the devil taking the word out of someone's heart.

But since you are saved I'm going to assume that you would wish to eliminate guns. That seems to be the most Christian stance (imho). But I'm hoping to learn how a variety of Christians think.

I mean just look at you and Dad here! You think the Different State Past ended at the Fall (or at least I assume that since you say in the DSP there was no death) while Dad says it ended after the Flood. That's a pretty big divide based on some assumptions both of you make from reading the Bible.

Just interested in understanding your Christianity. So are you OK with guns or do you want to eliminate them?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

The devil made him do it?

The thing that made me ask AV1611VET this question was reading AV1611VET's post in which he explicitly mentioned he was questioned by someone in his church about "gun control" about the time he was saved.

He brought it up, I was only asking about it. If he doesn't want to answer it that's his choice.

(Although I can't imagine why, if God makes the decisions easy then whatever decision AV1611VET makes is going to be protected by the armor of faith, right? So why would he not openly state his beliefs? What does he have to fear in answering the question he opened the door for?)

 

[AV1611VET]

Just interested in understanding your Christianity.

Read the Bible then -- (if you haven't already).

So are you OK with guns or do you want to eliminate them?

Ever heard of the Second Amendment?

 

[AV1611VET]

The thing that made me ask AV1611VET this question was reading AV1611VET's post in which he explicitly mentioned he was questioned by someone in his church about "gun control" about the time he was saved.

No, I wasn't 'questioned by someone in my church.'

I was the questioner, not the questionee.

The day I was saved, I actually called the lady who led us to Christ on the phone and asked her specific questions about were we stood on issues:

• gun control

 

[TeddyReceptus]

For you to believe anything -- it has to be on its way to death and dying, doesn't it?

That sounds like something someone would say who would be against the death penalty.

Just like God put the Old Testament priests out of a job, He's going to put you ... scientists out of a job with a New Heaven and a New Earth.

Yeah, but for now the scientists are still needed to understand what's going on in THIS state, right?

Then what are you going to do with your fancy entropy and laws of thermodynamics and tectonic plates and vulcan eruptions and Y2Ks and all that other doomsday bologna you guys love to spout?

Well, personally, I'd tell God the laws of thermodynamics were pretty cool once we figured them out! Entropy is way cool because it helps us understand time, it helps us understand why someone can't make a perpetual motion machine (so we don't get bamboozled by people who want to take our money for something that can't exist in the current "State"), the rest of the laws are really useful for making machines which do all sorts of cool things!

Not so sure that "plate tectonics" is "doomsday bologna". I thought that was just a really cool way for a planet to "live" and "change" and provide us with all sorts of cool stuff that make this planet really beautiful (maybe there aren't any mountains where you are are, but mountains are beautiful! Some are from plate tectonics and other geologic processes related to the energy in the earth.)

The purity of everything will drive you guys nuts, won't it?

You know why a lot of gems have the beautiful colors they have, right? Many beautiful stones have their color because of IMPURITIES.

Take emerald for instance, you might recall emerald from Revelations:

"And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald."

Emerald is green because some chromium impurity is in the crystal structure.

What about sapphire? Ezekiel: "And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it."

Sapphire is blue because there's some iron and titanium impurity in there.

So impurity often makes things a lot prettier! There's beauty in all these "bad" things you listed. A lot of beauty actually.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

No, I wasn't 'questioned by someone in my church.'

I was the questioner, not the questionee.

Oh I stand corrected. My bad.

So does the Second Amendment trump Jesus in Matthew Chapter 26?

 

[AV1611VET]

That sounds like something someone would say who would be against the death penalty.

-- Here we go with the death penalty again.

Does Indiana want you or something?

So impurity often makes things a lot prettier! There's beauty in all these "bad" things you listed. A lot of beauty actually.

Why are they called 'impurities?'

Because they don't belong there?

Revelation 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh I stand corrected. My bad.

So does the Second Amendment trump Jesus in Matthew Chapter 26?

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Interpreted by Jesus as:

Matthew 19:18b Thou shalt do no murder,

Note also:

Ecclesiastes 3:3a A time to kill, and a time to heal;

And if you think Jesus was a pacifist, no pacifist would admit that he is "one" with someone who killed the firstborn of every household that didn't have the blood of a lamb sprinkled on its door posts.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Interpreted by Jesus as:

Matthew 19:18b Thou shalt do no murder,

Note also:

Ecclesiastes 3:3a A time to kill, and a time to heal;

Yeah I'm familiar with the difference in the Bible between "killing" and "murder". But I'm always fascinated how the Second Amendment is on equal footing with Jesus exhortation to put away the sword.

I didn't realize Jesus would vote a straight Republican ticket.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Why are they called 'impurities?'

Because they don't belong there?

Yup.

Revelation 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

I don't think I've ever seen a jasper that was clear (or even transparent!)

Frankly I think impurities are cool because it's the flaws and impurities that often give the world color. And I find it interesting that someone could complain about the impurities when the prophets and authors of some New Testament books would point up the beauty of gems who get their color from impurities.

 

[AV1611VET]

... flaws and impurities ...

By any chance, did you see my rant here?

In addition, evolution blasphemes the God of Heaven, mainly by using third-rate terminology to explain 'scientific' progress -- such as referring to God's creation that was 'made in the image and likeness of God' as 'mutant copy-errors.'

Acts 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.