Different state past

[dad]

thanks.

Cheers

 

[TeddyReceptus]

OK. This might help...


Timeline - A Journey of Discovery

Actually it kinda makes things more confusing. You see there's evidence in the rock record of continents moving around before the KT boundary.

Here's a bit of help for you: If you want to sound all sciencey in this, make sure that you don't get yourself tripped up by your ignorance of what things like the KT boundary mean. Because when you mention it explicitly then you have a bunch of science geeks coming up and pointing out that in rocks that are BEFORE (older) than the KT boundary there's evidence of things like continental movement. Take the Appalachian mountains which are at their oldest much much older than the KT boundary.

Even if you don't know the actual numbers the rocks record which things came before which other things. The Appalachians came long before the KT boundary. Link to USGS

So it is really good to make sure you don't trip up and try to do science when you don't know much science.

If you keep it "vague" your hypothesis will work better.

Remember: Your job is being the jello that the science geeks are trying to nail to the wall.

So that means you can't talk specifics lest people realize you don't have a clue about what your talking about.

Funny about the 3 molar thingie What cud it mean?
Well, I suspect that if God refers to a hare as a cud chewer, that the original kind was just that!

So different kinds existed after the "Split"? After Noah? Interesting.

 

[sandwiches]

I was never religious, so I don't have that problem. Just a saved sinner.

Here is God talking about laws in deep space..

Job 38:33 - Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you make them to rule over the earth?

All I gotta say is this: I really hope that the Bible isn't the word of God, if he does exist.

 

[Tiberius]

You sit on earth, pal. Face it.

Yeah, Earth. Where there ims a whole load of NO EVIDENCE for anything you say.

Easy. The materials now in decay were here already. But they were not in decay.

Yes, which would work fine, except for the fact that they often show millions of years of decay!

Many use the estimate of about 4500 years.

And that was about the same time as that state change, yes?

No. They are post flood.

Then why are you using the Sumerian accounts of long lives as evidence for a different state past?

The evidence is that science knows the continents separated! So, in a biblical standpoint where else could this fit?

I am not asking for your evidence that the continents move. I am well aware of plate tectonics and I fully accept that it occurs (because of the heaping pile of evidence, y'know?). I am asking for your evidence that the continents moved RAPIDLY.

No one knows. But I suspect that since the stuff in that layer is found in either space or the interior of the earth, that could be a clue! The flood waters came from there.

Please provide a source that shows that Iridium is common in the deeper layers of the Earth, below the crust. Because from what I know of it, the stuff is heavy enough to sink in molten rock. I honestly can't see how water could bring it to the surface.

And anyway, the rocks in which the KT boundary is found date to about 65 million years old. Now, let's say you are right, and this dating is unreliable because at the time the rocks were laid down, the radioactive decay wasn't working the way we expect it to. According to you, the state change happened about this same time. So how do we get rocks that radiodate to 10 million years? They must have been formed well after the present state came into effect, but they still display ages that are much to old (according to you). And the radioactive decay that occurred in these rocks was present state decay as well!

No. That is a movie. Try not to confuse reality with movies.

Okay, if you promise not to confuse reality with myth and old stories. Movies, myths... It's all fiction of some kind...

If they did not find the food and habitat they liked and needed why would they stay? Simple.

So you are saying that wherever we find an animal that is native to one area and nowhere else, it is because that is the only place where they can find the "food and habitat they liked and needed"?

How then do you account for the huge numbers of rabbits and camels living feral in Australia? It certainly seems that they get the food they like and need there, yet they were never native to Australia.

Another bit of evidence for a later separation might be the evolution of the kinds. We had maybe over a century in the former state. Knowing that fossils are post flood, mostly, for mammals, we can simply look at the record, and see that some animals lived on more than one continent.

Would you care to go into more detail?

No one knows. But I suspect that no better educated guess exists than mine Really.

My god. That's arrogant.

Planters I suspect. Lots of rain and poop around. Need more??

And, pray tell, how do you know there were planters on the Ark. And do you really think that the animals on the Ark would be able to provide enough manure to fertilize all those plants?

He leaves some stuff up to little man.

Perhaps he grew weary of performing all those miracles.

Unsupported godless guess.

Given that no one of the time ever mentions the fact that plants are living, it seems rather plausible. Certainly much more plausible than your ideas.

The salinity is not proven is it? I suspect there may have been areas more saline than others

Yeah, that much fresh rainwater mixing with that much salty sea water wouldn't cause any changes in salinity at all...

We need time in the former state for animals to evolve as much as the record indicates I suspect. If the change was right at the flood, then we can kiss the ice age good bye in a rapid way, and evolution.

Much as the record indicates? Oh, but but... I thought you said that, for mammals at least, the fossil record was laid down in the PRESENT STATE.

My goodness, I've seen acrobats that flip flop less than you.

Try to limit the former state evolving?? Get serious. Like you know.

You certainly don't.

But even normally solitary insects or social, could have their instincts updated fast as needed! Easy.

So I guess when God left it all up to little man, he still didn't leave it all up to little man.

Then, we still have over a hundred long former state years to adjust as needed!

Evolution takes a lot longer than a hundred years.

I am distrusting the ones you cling to without reason.

I have reason. Better reasons than you have for yours.

No, I suspect the earth was split or divided in the days of Peleg. Many accounts have him born 101 years after the flood if I recall.

Close enough.

Define rational, as pertaining to the supernatural??

Rational, meaning "based on evidence that can be tested, verified and observed by others, that which can be shown by such means to be objectively true."

 

[dad]

All I gotta say is this: I really hope that the Bible isn't the word of God, if he does exist.

Why what is in it you don't like?

 

[dad]

Actually it kinda makes things more confusing. You see there's evidence in the rock record of continents moving around before the KT boundary.

Hey, I'm game...let's see it!? By the way...careful...I never said that the rapid post flood separation was the only movement!

Here's a bit of help for you: If you want to sound all sciencey in this, make sure that you don't get yourself tripped up by your ignorance of what things like the KT boundary mean. Because when you mention it explicitly then you have a bunch of science geeks coming up and pointing out that in rocks that are BEFORE (older) than the KT boundary there's evidence of things like continental movement. Take the Appalachian mountains which are at their oldest much much older than the KT boundary.

Piece of cake...Not all mountains were pushed up in the post flood mountain building epoch! Try again.

So different kinds existed after the "Split"? After Noah? Interesting.

Different kinds exist now...so?? This is news?

 

[dad]

Yes, which would work fine, except for the fact that they often show millions of years of decay!

Imaginary years only count in horseshoes.

And that was about the same time as that state change, yes?

Close....a bit over 100 years apart.

Then why are you using the Sumerian accounts of long lives as evidence for a different state past?

The accounts would reflect lives near the time of the flood....

I am not asking for your evidence that the continents move. I am well aware of plate tectonics and I fully accept that it occurs (because of the heaping pile of evidence, y'know?). I am asking for your evidence that the continents moved RAPIDLY.

Why not!? Like you have evidence it was slow!? No. You don't.

Please provide a source that shows that Iridium is common in the deeper layers of the Earth, below the crust. Because from what I know of it, the stuff is heavy enough to sink in molten rock. I honestly can't see how water could bring it to the surface.

Hey, water from space and deep under the earth gushing and pouring in planet filling amounts..?!

Try taking a pot of water....toss in some sand and salt...now pour it on the ground....voila! The sand comes out and the salt too!

And anyway, the rocks in which the KT boundary is found date to about 65 million years old. Now, let's say you are right, and this dating is unreliable because at the time the rocks were laid down, the radioactive decay wasn't working the way we expect it to. According to you, the state change happened about this same time. So how do we get rocks that radiodate to 10 million years? They must have been formed well after the present state came into effect, but they still display ages that are much to old (according to you). And the radioactive decay that occurred in these rocks was present state decay as well!

Easy! The state change affected all layers! So in all layers, you may not apply same state dating. It isn't like just some layers are affected on earth by the law changes!

So you are saying that wherever we find an animal that is native to one area and nowhere else, it is because that is the only place where they can find the "food and habitat they liked and needed"?

Maybe. Give an example so we can clarify.. I will put my think tank to work

How then do you account for the huge numbers of rabbits and camels living feral in Australia? It certainly seems that they get the food they like and need there, yet they were never native to Australia.

They live in modern Australia! So? The issue is what first made it from the ark area to the still connected Australia in the way it was THEN!

Would you care to go into more detail?

Sure ask a question....

My god. That's arrogant.

I call em like I see em.

And, pray tell, how do you know there were planters on the Ark. And do you really think that the animals on the Ark would be able to provide enough manure to fertilize all those plants?

Well, we have many things possibly at work....hibernation states or semi hibernation states (so not much food needed) ....rainwater piped into ark....fertilizer available from poop (and food waste etc)....different state light.....etc

Perhaps he grew weary of performing all those miracles.

No. He does stuff for our benefit too! We need to work and do stuff too.

Given that no one of the time ever mentions the fact that plants are living, it seems rather plausible. Certainly much more plausible than your ideas.

They had to be....we see them after the flood! Elementary.

Yeah, that much fresh rainwater mixing with that much salty sea water wouldn't cause any changes in salinity at all...

Rain? Well, imagine giant hoses squirting down from windows of heaven on earth...like filling a bucket....and giant founts from below erupting. Enough to cover the planet in a little over 5 weeks over the mountain tops!

I would suspect that all that salt coming up, or some of it would take time to permeate..?

Much as the record indicates? Oh, but but... I thought you said that, for mammals at least, the fossil record was laid down in the PRESENT STATE.

So? Name a man or mammal that this presents a problem for??

So I guess when God left it all up to little man, he still didn't leave it all up to little man.

He did not leave the updating of animal instincts and behaviors (now frozen in dna in this state) up to man...no. Of course.

Evolution takes a lot longer than a hundred years.

Now...yes. Then...NO!

Rational, meaning "based on evidence that can be tested, verified and observed by others, that which can be shown by such means to be objectively true."

So that rules out laws of the past. Thanks for that.

 

[Tiberius]

Imaginary years only count in horseshoes.

Dance around the issue all you want, but the fact is this:

Even if we grant that radioactive decay has been going on for a few thousand years at most, we still have rock samples that, in those few thousand years, have indications of MILLIONS of years of decay.

You have NEVER explained how this is possible in your different state past idea.

Close....a bit over 100 years apart.

Close enough.

The accounts would reflect lives near the time of the flood....

People in the Summerian civilisation that lived at the time of the flood?

Why not!? Like you have evidence it was slow!? No. You don't.

Oh my goodness... You actually think that this is a valid reason for believing in something? Do you believe in fairies? No? Why not? You can't prove that they don't exist!

Listen, dad, I'm not asking you to prove my ideas wrong, I'm asking you to give me some evidence that your idea is correct. One teensy tiny bit of evidence that the rate of plate movement was once faster than it is today.

Hey, water from space and deep under the earth gushing and pouring in planet filling amounts..?!

Try taking a pot of water....toss in some sand and salt...now pour it on the ground....voila! The sand comes out and the salt too!

This makes no sense to what I asked.

I asked you to provide a source that Iridium is common underground.

Easy! The state change affected all layers! So in all layers, you may not apply same state dating. It isn't like just some layers are affected on earth by the law changes!

So the state change affected things that didn't exist yet?

Maybe. Give an example so we can clarify.. I will put my think tank to work

Camels. Camels were not to be found in Australia until they were introduced. However, since then, they have spread and are now a feral pest. Now, the fact that the camel population has increased so greatly shows that the camels are surviving remarkably well. They must obviously have the food and habitat they need and like here in Australia. And yet, they were not found here until recent history. My question is this: If the environment in Australia is so to their liking, why didn't they come here after leaving the ark?

They live in modern Australia! So? The issue is what first made it from the ark area to the still connected Australia in the way it was THEN!

No, the issue is why didn't rabbits come straight to Australia from the ark, as they obviously LOVE it here.

Sure ask a question....

I did ask a question. GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THIS IDEA. Don't ask me to provide questions when you are ignoring the questions already asked.

I call em like I see em.

No, you call them like you want to see them. Big difference. You are probably one of the LEAST qualified people on the planet to be making statements about the distribution of rabbits.

I mean, come on. I ask why rabbits didn't go to Australia after they left the ark (post 663), and you respond by saying that "it was too wet at the time" (post 664).

Given that you said "maybe", it sure seems like you don't know squat about what was really going on, and I bring this up (post 668). And yet, you claim (in post 675) that despite the fact that no one knows (actually, science does know), you're guess - GUESS - is the best qualified answer available anywhere!

So, yes, you are arrogant.

Well, we have many things possibly at work....hibernation states or semi hibernation states (so not much food needed) ....rainwater piped into ark....fertilizer available from poop (and food waste etc)....different state light.....etc

First of all, this is all more guesswork.

Secondly, none of this explains how you know planters were on the ark.

No. He does stuff for our benefit too! We need to work and do stuff too.

Why?

They had to be....we see them after the flood! Elementary.

Or that the whole story is a fiction. That would also explain it, wouldn't it?

Rain? Well, imagine giant hoses squirting down from windows of heaven on earth...like filling a bucket....and giant founts from below erupting. Enough to cover the planet in a little over 5 weeks over the mountain tops!

I would suspect that all that salt coming up, or some of it would take time to permeate..?

Are you actually TRYING to destroy your own position? Because that much rain and water flow is certainly going to stir up the water when it gets to the sea, resulting in mixing of saline and fresh water! It isn't helping your case at all! Just more evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

So? Name a man or mammal that this presents a problem for??

You claim that the fossil record for mammals was laid down in the present state.

You also claim that in the present state, evolution takes a very long time.

In the length of time that the present state has been in effect (a few thousand years), there has not been enough time for the great variety of mammals to have evolved from the forms we find in the fossil record (which was laid down at the beginning of this state, just a few thousand years according to you).

Therefore, you are wrong.

He did not leave the updating of animal instincts and behaviors (now frozen in dna in this state) up to man...no. Of course.

Seems like God went to a lot of trouble with all this.

Tell me, why didn't he just snap his fingers and get rid of all the troublesome elements?

Now...yes. Then...NO!

More guesswork. You have absolutely no evidence to support your statements about the rate of evolution.

So that rules out laws of the past. Thanks for that.

No it does not, because what we see in the deep past is identical to what we see in the present day.

 

[dad]

Dance around the issue all you want, but the fact is this:

Even if we grant that radioactive decay has been going on for a few thousand years at most, we still have rock samples that, in those few thousand years, have indications of MILLIONS of years of decay.

I have been patient, trying to assume that I was not dealing with willing ignorance.
If there was no decay, then the time it 'would' take to decay to produce materials has no relevance...except of course IN this state where daughter materials now do get produced by decay.

People in the Summerian civilisation that lived at the time of the flood?

No. Sumer was post flood! Since the different state would have been in effect also after the flood, connect the dots.

Oh my goodness... You actually think that this is a valid reason for believing in something? Do you believe in fairies? No? Why not? You can't prove that they don't exist!

If you claim it was slow, or that fairies were involved as science...we need to look at that!

Listen, dad, I'm not asking you to prove my ideas wrong, I'm asking you to give me some evidence that your idea is correct. One teensy tiny bit of evidence that the rate of plate movement was once faster than it is today.

No one needs to prove that some slow evolving didn't happen! You folks that claim it was slow need to support the claim or stay losers.

I asked you to provide a source that Iridium is common underground.

Come on now! Just goodle! Need a million sites? Hers is the first one that popped up..

"It is true that iridium is found in higher concentrations within the molten interior of the Earth. "
Cretaceous[SIZE=+3]
[/SIZE]

So the state change affected things that didn't exist yet?

No. But it set the rules for any layers that came later as well.

Camels. Camels were not to be found in Australia until they were introduced. However, since then, they have spread and are now a feral pest. Now, the fact that the camel population has increased so greatly shows that the camels are surviving remarkably well. They must obviously have the food and habitat they need and like here in Australia. And yet, they were not found here until recent history. My question is this: If the environment in Australia is so to their liking, why didn't they come here after leaving the ark?

Ancient Australia was different. For example...


" an inland sea that covered about a third of Australia 110 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period..."
fossils opals australia rocks shells palaeontology cretaceous dinosaur jurassic

Want a camel to live in a wet area?

No, the issue is why didn't rabbits come straight to Australia from the ark, as they obviously LOVE it here.

See above. We also might ask if modern rabbits existed at the flood!? Proof?

No, you call them like you want to see them. Big difference. You are probably one of the LEAST qualified people on the planet to be making statements about the distribution of rabbits.

False. I am aware of a few things. Important things.

I mean, come on. I ask why rabbits didn't go to Australia after they left the ark (post 663), and you respond by saying that "it was too wet at the time" (post 664).

See above. Proof that modern no cud chewing 'rabbits' were anywhere near the ark??

First of all, this is all more guesswork.

Secondly, none of this explains how you know planters were on the ark.

If the animals were awake long enough to eat a lot, how else would they get enough food?

Why?

Why does man need to work at something? Well, I suspect that we were designed to work at good and interesting and important and fun stuff. In this state of fallenness we still need to do stuff.....alas.

Are you actually TRYING to destroy your own position? Because that much rain and water flow is certainly going to stir up the water when it gets to the sea, resulting in mixing of saline and fresh water! It isn't helping your case at all! Just more evidence that you don't know what you are talking about.

Not in any way is that remotely close to true. You assume that the water was salty. If we had salt coming up from below later in the flood, then none of what you imagine has credence. So why imagine stuff that opposes the bible?

You claim that the fossil record for mammals was laid down in the present state.

Nope. Just that man and mammals for the most part would be.

You also claim that in the present state, evolution takes a very long time.

That is science, not me.

In the length of time that the present state has been in effect (a few thousand years), there has not been enough time for the great variety of mammals to have evolved from the forms we find in the fossil record (which was laid down at the beginning of this state, just a few thousand years according to you).

Therefore, you are wrong.

Absurd and circular. Try to get this right. The former state was when most of the evolving happened. No great time for evolving was needed then.

More guesswork. You have absolutely no evidence to support your statements about the rate of evolution.

Yes I do. Science establishes a low present rate. And the bible, when considered, and the former state establishes fast evolving. Simple.

No it does not, because what we see in the deep past is identical to what we see in the present day.

Trees do not grow in weeks generally, actually! Spirits don't marry gals now either as a rule. Men don't live many many centuries either. Etc. This is what you need to face.

 

[Tiberius]

I have been patient, trying to assume that I was not dealing with willing ignorance.

I could say the same thing.

If there was no decay, then the time it 'would' take to decay to produce materials has no relevance...except of course IN this state where daughter materials now do get produced by decay.

Why are you not answering my question.

1. According to you, there has been over a few thousand years in the present state for rocks to experience radioactive decay.
2. These rocks show signs of having been decaying for millions of years.

You have never explained how these two seemingly contradictory facts can be made to agree.

No. Sumer was post flood! Since the different state would have been in effect also after the flood, connect the dots.

So all the Sumerian records that speak of long lived people come from the few decades between the flood and the state change?

If you claim it was slow, or that fairies were involved as science...we need to look at that!

No, I'm not claiming fairies as a part of science. So how do you disprove it?

No one needs to prove that some slow evolving didn't happen! You folks that claim it was slow need to support the claim or stay losers.

And you claim that there was fast evolution to support your claim.

There is evidence of very slow evolution. There is no evidence of fast evolution.

Come on now! Just goodle! Need a million sites? Hers is the first one that popped up..

"It is true that iridium is found in higher concentrations within the molten interior of the Earth. "
Cretaceous[SIZE=+3]
[/SIZE]

Thank you. Now please explain how water rushing from underground can bring iridium to the surface, since iridium is so heavy that it sinks in molten rock. And please explain how there can be vast reservoirs of water in molten rock.

No. But it set the rules for any layers that came later as well.

This makes no sense. Explain how a state that no longer existed can have an effect on things that did not occur until after the different past state ceased to be.

Ancient Australia was different. For example...

" an inland sea that covered about a third of Australia 110 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period..."
fossils opals australia rocks shells palaeontology cretaceous dinosaur jurassic

Want a camel to live in a wet area?

I'm sorry, but aren't you claiming that 110 million years ago (I didn't even realise you thought the Earth was that old) the universe was in a different state? So how do you know that in this different past state that camels wouldn't benefit from a wet environment?

See above. We also might ask if modern rabbits existed at the flood!? Proof?

Well, if rabbis were different back then, how do you know that they wouldn't have loved the wet conditions?

And if rabbits were different back then, how can you call them rabbits?

False. I am aware of a few things. Important things.

Yes, I'm sure you are aware of how to tie your shoelaces. But when it cames to science, you are one of the LEAST qualified people on the planet.

See above. Proof that modern no cud chewing 'rabbits' were anywhere near the ark??

And see my answer above.

If the animals were awake long enough to eat a lot, how else would they get enough food?

So you are guessing.

Why does man need to work at something? Well, I suspect that we were designed to work at good and interesting and important and fun stuff. In this state of fallenness we still need to do stuff.....alas.

Guesses.

Not in any way is that remotely close to true. You assume that the water was salty. If we had salt coming up from below later in the flood, then none of what you imagine has credence. So why imagine stuff that opposes the bible?

Dad, unless you are proposing some mechanism that kept the fresh water separate from the salt water, you have explained nothing.

Nope. Just that man and mammals for the most part would be.

This does not change my point.

That is science, not me.

And I agree with it. Do you?

Absurd and circular. Try to get this right. The former state was when most of the evolving happened. No great time for evolving was needed then.

But you have said that there was only very little time available for evolution of mammals before the switch to the present state. Did all the evolution of mammals happen in that time? How long was it again?

Yes I do. Science establishes a low present rate. And the bible, when considered, and the former state establishes fast evolving. Simple.

Of course, that all requires you to treat the Bible as the equivalent of a science book.

Trees do not grow in weeks generally, actually! Spirits don't marry gals now either as a rule. Men don't live many many centuries either. Etc. This is what you need to face.

And they never did either. That is what you need to face.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you know, dad, it's all about evidence.

I'm thankful I don't have to rummage around in an evolutionist's evidence locker.

Hard telling what's in there, or what I might pick up.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Don't you know, dad, it's all about evidence.

I'm thankful I don't have to rummage around in an evolutionist's evidence locker.

Hard telling what's in there, or what I might pick up.

Your bitterness is creeping through the facade again.

 

[Jazer]

All I gotta say is this: I really hope that the Bible isn't the word of God, if he does exist.

So you think you can do a better job of running the universe?

 

[Elendur]

So you think you can do a better job of running the universe?

Now that is impossible to answer for anyone, since god is working on two principles:
He's omnipotent.
He works in mysterious ways (to us mere humans).

If anyone points to one point that's currently bad and says that could work better (since power in any way is no problem) the response will just be:
"He works in mysterious ways." (effectively justifying everything)

 

[Tiberius]

Don't you know, dad, it's all about evidence.

I'm thankful I don't have to rummage around in an evolutionist's evidence locker.

Hard telling what's in there, or what I might pick up.

You gotta admit, evidence is a pretty good reason for accepting something, eh?

 

[dad]

According to you, there has been over a few thousand years in the present state for rocks to experience radioactive decay.

1. These rocks show signs of having been decaying for millions of years.

Not true. The materials that are now in decay would only take a long time to get here if this state were here all along. If not, then we have zero need of old ages.

So all the Sumerian records that speak of long lived people come from the few decades between the flood and the state change?

No. Some may have been from memory relating to the pre flood times...we don't know. But we do know that long lives were the recorded reality.

No, I'm not claiming fairies as a part of science. So how do you disprove it?

I wait for something to be proven before worrying about whether it needs unproving.

And you claim that there was fast evolution to support your claim.

Right. There had to be. So? You claim slow evolving as science. You are going down here, not I.

There is evidence of very slow evolution. There is no evidence of fast evolution.

Great...let's see it??

Thank you. Now please explain how water rushing from underground can bring iridium to the surface, since iridium is so heavy that it sinks in molten rock. And please explain how there can be vast reservoirs of water in molten rock.

Easy. Take a lead bullet...pretty heat huh? Shoot it out a barrel of a gun. So did it sink back in?? No. The force with which something is projected would need to be considered.

This makes no sense. Explain how a state that no longer existed can have an effect on things that did not occur until after the different past state ceased to be.

Ok. Name such a thing that you think was affected!!? We can look at that.

I'm sorry, but aren't you claiming that 110 million years ago (I didn't even realise you thought the Earth was that old) the universe was in a different state? So how do you know that in this different past state that camels wouldn't benefit from a wet environment?

Well, if camels evolved to retain water, how is it that you claim they did so in a wet part of the world! Think before posting.

Well, if rabbis were different back then, how do you know that they wouldn't have loved the wet conditions?

Well, I could look to see if some were fossilized. Evidence. It can be your friend.

And if rabbits were different back then, how can you call them rabbits?

I give up...how??

So you are guessing.

Why, were you there and can give us a fisrt hand account?

Guesses.

Not really. God told man that as part of the curse, he would have to work and get by with the sweat of his brow.

Dad, unless you are proposing some mechanism that kept the fresh water separate from the salt water, you have explained nothing.

Who says that it was not mostly fresh at the time? You know?

And I agree with it. Do you?

When it says...what? You see I take what is good and reject what is filthy dreaming.

But you have said that there was only very little time available for evolution of mammals before the switch to the present state. Did all the evolution of mammals happen in that time? How long was it again?

The kinds I assume evolved pre flood as well. But since apparently man and mammals for the most part did not fossilize, the record for them only starts post flood.

Of course, that all requires you to treat the Bible as the equivalent of a science book.

No. The bible is far far far higher. You kidding??

And they never did either. That is what you need to face.

You make a claim....support it! Here. Now. I don't believe you.

 

[DaneaFL]

Who says that it was not mostly fresh at the time? You know?

So you are saying that it only took 4000 years for all the salts in the ocean to dissolve?

The ocean has 35 grams of salt per kilogram of seawater on average.
Even your magical global flood couldn't deposit that much salt in that short a time.

Oh wait... I forgot this is the different state past thread... you are just going to assume that reality was different 4000 years ago so anything is possible.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Oh wait... I forgot this is the different state past thread... you are just going to assume that reality was different 4000 years ago so anything is possible.

Yeah, that's pretty much the sum total of the argument.

Actually reality could have been totally different 116 years ago (since the oldest living person I can find listed on the intarwebs is 115 years old, so anything before that is open to interpretation as a different state past).

Remember what Dad "needs" is that the past under discussion not have been observed. Obviously we use science and all manner of written records to let us know that in the past the earth likely was under the same sort of physical laws because they resulted in all sorts of things we see forming today and look, in many cases, exactly like what we see forming today.

BUT the more important thing is that with a "same state past" Dad can't understand his religious convictions. Doesn't mean he's right or wrong, just that as he's constructed them (or his pastor has told him), the only way to understand how his version of God could do the things he thinks He did is if the entire fabric of space time and logic be disassembled and strewn around the room like children's toys.

This is OK so long as Dad realizes that this violates so much of common sense and logic and basically up ends Occam's razor.

And who's to say? Maybe everything in the past was different but strangely it resulted in things that make sense with a "same state" past.

No one on here observed it. In fact no one on here observed the earth 116 years ago, so QED.

Dad wins. But the only thing anyone really needs to know is that Dad wins for himself and his faith. Since it doesn't really matter to people from different sects of Christianity it is a nice little victory he can celebrate with himself and a couple of his fellow congregation members.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I'm thankful I don't have to rummage around in an evolutionist's evidence locker.

Hard telling what's in there, or what I might pick up.

Might pick up "brain cooties".

Brain Cooties is a severe rot of the mind brought on by science. It has resulted in amazing strides in biology over the past 150 years and a concommitant rise in lifespans and improved therapies and understanding of various diseases.

Brain Cooties also allows people to understand the whys and wherefores of that DNA stuff that God crammed into the cells for some mysterious reason.

God put all that genetic information into cells and it must have been to make us think things were not as they appeared. Same with fossils. Same with "age" which he embedded into rocks to make them appear to be older...oops...I meant make them "older" without actually being "older"...ooops, I meant make them older by being older without going through the time to be older. Oops I meant "Language is DEAD! Hallelujah!"

God is crafty, eh?

But in the end Brain Cooties is what happens when you pay attention to what God put in front of you instead of ignoring it and praying harder that God NOT show you anything more.

God can be so inconsiderate at times!

Or maybe God isn't inconsiderate at all. Maybe he's really put all that information out there for you and I to see and explore.

Or maybe God just wants the ebil scientist to contract BRAIN COOTIES!

 

[AV1611VET]

Might pick up "brain cooties".

Brain Cooties is a severe rot of the mind brought on by science. It has resulted in amazing strides in biology over the past 150 years and a concommitant rise in lifespans and improved therapies and understanding of various diseases.

Brain Cooties also allows people to understand the whys and wherefores of that DNA stuff that God crammed into the cells for some mysterious reason.

God put all that genetic information into cells and it must have been to make us think things were not as they appeared. Same with fossils. Same with "age" which he embedded into rocks to make them appear to be older...oops...I meant make them "older" without actually being "older"...ooops, I meant make them older by being older without going through the time to be older. Oops I meant "Language is DEAD! Hallelujah!"

God is crafty, eh?

But in the end Brain Cooties is what happens when you pay attention to what God put in front of you instead of ignoring it and praying harder that God NOT show you anything more.

God can be so inconsiderate at times!

Or maybe God isn't inconsiderate at all. Maybe he's really put all that information out there for you and I to see and explore.

Or maybe God just wants the ebil scientist to contract BRAIN COOTIES!

Brain cooties lead to a unique disgust and low tolerance towards those who don't have them.